Browse by

WISDOM OF JESUS

The Syriac is made directly from the Greek following a M S resembling Codex Alex. Whilst in general it ienders the ideas and expressions of the original with fidelity, it diverges therefrom far more t h a n the Latin. It adds explicita and other explanatory words, inserts the proper names (Cain, etc.) in chap. 10, transfers a number of Greek words, gives iree translations, mistranslates and omits. On the attempt to refer it to an Aramaic original see Hasse. For the Arabic version cp Hasse, for the Armenian cp Welte and F. H. Reusch Liher Sapient. grrerc etc., 1858 ; these also both come from o& Greek. Fo; general works on the Jewish conception of wisdom see WISUOMITERATURE , $ 15. For lists of critical and expository L works up to 1860 see Bretschneider and 26. Bibliography. Grimm. Among these the following may be mentioned : Rabanus Maurus, t856, the earliest extant commentator (in Migne); Grotius, Annoiationes, 1664; Cornelius :I Lapide, Comment. in lib?. Sap., 1613; Cappellus Comment. . in VT, 1689 (scattered observations); J.’ M. Faher, Prolusiones, 1776-77 and 1786-87; J. G. Hasse, Salonro’s Weisheit, 1785 ; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung i d. Apocr. Schr. d. A T , 1795; C. G. Bretschneider, Lih. . Sapient., 1804 ; C. L. ’W. Grimm (in Kurzgc?exeget. Hand6uch z. d. dpokr. d. A T ) , 1860 (very full and judicious, supernedes his work of 1837). Since 1860 have appeared commentaries by E. C. Rissell, 1880(in the volume o n the Apocrypha added to the Lange series) F. W. Farrar, 1888 (in Wace’s Apocryplra), and Siegfried (in Kautzsch’s Apokr.) ; articles in Smith‘s D B (by B. F. Westcott); M‘Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia: Herzog-Hauck, R E (by E. SchOrer, see also his GJV, etc.=Hisi. o the Iewish People, etc.); Hastings’ D B f (by Siegfried); and annotated editions by W. J. Deane (The Book o Wisdom, 1881), W. R. Churton(in his Uncanonicaland f Apocvphal Scriptures, 1884), and C. J.Bal1 (in his Variorum Apocrypha, 1892). On the ethical ideas see Kiibel, ‘Die Ethischen Anschauungen d. Weisheit Salomonis,’ in St. Kr. (1865).

WONDERS
In ancient times the heroes of mankind were commonly represented as being distinguished from other men by (amongst other characteristics) the manner in which they entered and departed life. They were not born in the usual way, or, if so, out of due course ; they disappeared from life in a mysterious way, or they showed themselves superior to death by dying cheerfully under painful circumstances. Thus both by their birth and by their death they witnessed to their superiority. This was specially the case with founders of religions. But ‘ the faithful ’ were also called upon to bear witness. While, however, the master gave evidence of the truth of his claims by the wonderful words and works of his whole life, ‘ the faithful ’ could in most cases only witness to the truth of them by following the master’s teaching even unto death. Disciples, therefore, in some cases, sought and actually found martyrdom ; in other cases they are represented by tradition as having so suffered, whether they did so or not. T h e idea of witness by miracle and martyrdom is confined to no single religion. C p W ONDERS. M. A. C.

. .

WIZARD (’JJR!), Lev.
WOLF

2027.

See MAGIC,

4, iii.

A y ~ o c Zupur). This is the usual ; word for ‘wolf,‘ though in Is. 1322 RV renders o’:?, ’iyyim, and SBOT oyp, tannim, by ‘wolves’ ; see
and, on the variety of terms for wild animals, CAT. In Is. 116 a notable reference is made to the wolf, which as a type of ferocity is brought into contrast with the lamb.2 The full force of the phrase employed is that the wolf will, as it were, become a g5r or client of the lamb (cp S TRANGRR ). T h e wolf (Canis I u p ~ s ) has a very wide range, extending practically throughout North America ( N . of Mexico), Europe, and Asia. Many local varieties occur, which have been by various authorities raised to the rank of species. T h e wolf is still found in Palestine (and Arabia, cp Doughty, A r . Des. 1327). It is there somewhat lighter in colour and has a stronger and stouter build than in Europe, rarely moves in packs, and prowls, sometimes in pairs, round the sheepfolds a t night. By day it frequents the rocky valleys. Naturally it plays a large part in the life of the Israelites, and the references to its boldness and ferocity are frequent (cp Gen. 4 9 2 7 Jer. 5 6 Ezek. 2 2 2 7 Hab. 1 8 Zeph. 33). However, if the cubs be removed a t a very early age they are susceptible of training, though they can rarely be trusted with strangers. The word for ‘ wolf’ is frequently used as a personal and and clan name (cp Cook, Aram. Gloss. S.V. >xi, see zEEB),3 and it has accordingly been held that it was a totem-animal among certain communities (at least) of the ancient S e n i i t e ~ . ~ For the wolf in Semitic legend and folklore see WRS, Kinship, 198, Rel. Sem.(2)88.
J ACKAL ,

(381 ;

C H. T . .

WISDOM OF JESUS. See ECCLESIASTICUS, SIRACH. WISE MEN (D%?n), Gen. 4 1 8 . See M AGIC , 5 3, STARS, 9 5 , ZOROASTRIANISM ; c p also WISDOM L ITERATURE , 2. WITCH (9&?2), Dt. 1810, WITCHCRAFT (OD?), I S. 1523. See M AGIC , 2 d 3rf. WITHES, GREEN, AVmS ‘ green [moist] cords,’ R V w . ‘new bowstrings’ (o*ni o’m;, yCfhthiirim Zuhim), Judg. 167. On the meaning of +, Zah, see COLOURS,17 ; for YW, 0 ydihev, see CORD. Bowstrings of ‘green’ gut, not yet dried, are probably meant. WITNESS. The part played by witnesses in Jewish legal procedure has been dealt with in L A W AND J USTICE , § 1 0 8 T h e Hebrew word is iy, ‘24 the Aramaic sEhdd ( R ~ Z O ; and in two passages in O T these two terms are ) treated as synonymous (Gem 3147. i y I/ ~ y i ? ? Job ; 16 19, i y 11 mg). T h e Arabic word is dhid or fahid (cp Palmyr. i m ; see Cook, A r u m . GZoss., 5.11.). The root iahida (=Aram. sehid; cp iqg with Ar. Sarudu) seems to have meant originally ‘ to be present ’ (cp the use of Iuhrrdin Koran, S u r 74 13). and then ‘ to bear (be present as) witness.’ &hid is both a witness in general, and one who witnesses to the truth of his creed by dying (see Sur. 4 7 1 3969:l. The original meaning of the Hebrew root was perhaps (as Gen. 31 47 Job 16 19 suggest) the same as in Arabic. Gen. 31 44 485’2 describes how a heap of stones was witness (7’; was present to remind) of some transaction ; Dt. 31 19 21 says that the song of Moses was witness to (iy; existed or was present to remind) the Israelites of a great achievement. For other instances of the use of i y in a similar sense see RDR where, however, the idea of the root is taken to be that & ‘reiterating, hence emphatically affirming.’ T h e word used i n the N T is pdpzus (pdrprup-). It was employed by Christians, as by Muhammedans, to describe ( I ) simply one who witnessed to the truth, and then ( 2 ) particularly one who gave evidence of the truth by dying, and so ‘ a martyr. ’ For ( I ) see Acts 1’22. The word is already used in the second sense (2) in the NT. So in Acts 22 zo (AV ; RV ‘witness ’), sa: a r e e?ro rb a f w i r Zre+&ou TOG p + v p d s uou ; Rev. 2 ‘3 (AV, R V ‘witness’), ~vrirras p ~ ; p T U s pow, 6 arur6s [pow], 6s &~errdu% rap’ 6piv. Rev. 176 (EV), ai, &Soy 7 j v yvvaka wrKuouuav i r rot a w & r ~ i y i o v , l t a r ex row arparos ~v v
w a p r d p o v ‘Iquoir.

See FAMILY, especially 55 4-6; M ARRIAGE , esp. $3 4 - 7 ; LAW, $ 1 4 a ;
S LAVERY ; and cp A DAM . esp. 36. WONDERS. The E V shows some uncertainty as
to the translation of the Hebrew and Greek synonyms. m i p u f h , is rendered by ‘wonder’ in Dt. 131 [ z ] (I) 28 46 EV, but in Ex. 7 9 Dt. 29 3 EV by ‘ miracle.’ The meaning of the root is uncertain, but see BDB and cp helow under (5).
1 According to Hommel (Sirugetltiere, 303$), 2$ is the jackal ; t see on the other hand ZDMG, 1880, p. 373, and cp J A CKA L . The Ass. cognate zi6u appears to denote also a bird of prey. a Compare the contrast in Mt. 10 16, ‘sheep in the midst of wolves ’ and Acts 20 29 where Paul at Miletus warns the ’ flock again&the Adror ,¶ape&. a The fact that the name ‘wolf‘ is given to a sickly child, ‘that their human fragility may take on as it were a temper of the kind of those animals’ (cp Doughty, A r . Des. 1329) does not weaken the above argument, since, in some cases, this name is horne not by individuals but by whole clans (cp Kin. rg7J). 4 See Robertson Smith, J . Phil. 9 7 s $ and cp Frazer,

WONDERS
In any case, in view of the results of the comparative method of study,’ it is impossible to treat the subject of wonders or miracles on the old lines. Here, however, it need only be pointed out that it is now evident that no religion can be isolated and treated separately : that myths, and wonders, whether natural (cp below) or supernatural, are not peculiar to any one system ; and that the ideas of primitive man, or the savage, have left their mark even on the most advanced religions. Comparative mythology shows that man has given explanations of the universe which indicate that the mind moves everywhere along very similar lines. Comparative religion teaches that even when men had attained to no small degree of general culture they still demanded outward and visible signs of the efficacy of their faith. T h e sage, or the founder of a religion, who claimed to enlighten his fellows, was expected to produce evidence, apart from his teaching, that he was endowed in a peculiar and extraordinary way. As a witness to his superiority, he was expected to perform wonders (or give a sign, cp [ 3 ] and [6] above). And as such a one was in most eases, owing to his superior knowledge, on a higher level than his contemporaries, he was, no doubt, often as a matter of fact able to do things which to them appeared wonderful ; he may often have been able to cure diseases, perhaps even to restore to life a body that was to all appearance lifeless; he was, no doubt, often able to exercise a remarkable influence over men’s minds, and perhaps to cure certain mental diseases. It is difficult to calculate the effect that such a display of power would haye on those who did not understand its nature. It is easy, on the other hand, to understand that such evidence of a power out of the common having beed furnished, wonders of a different nature would also be ascribed to the master by his disciples, especially after his decease. His works and his teaching would seem to combine t o suggest that he did not ’belong to the life of the earth ; he must be a favourite of one of the deities, or of the Deity, or a son of one of the deities, or of the Deity, or even an actual deity come in the flesh. The wonders with which he would now be accredited would no longer be relative and natural, but absolute and supernatural ( i . e . , miracles). It would be represented, especially after his decease, that the manner of his appearance in the world, and of h i s disappearance from it when his mission had been accomplished, were alike remarkable : that if his mother was human, his father was divine, that if he seemed to die like other men, it was not so in reality. H e would no longer be described as merely healing diseases, physical and psychical, by natural, but little understood, means. H e has become superior to the laws of nature. H e walks upon the sea and stills its waves, commands the wind and the storm, cures instantaneously the deaf, the dumb, and the blind, brings to life those who have actually died. This process went on even in the middle ages. ‘Principles of myth-formation, belonging properly to the mental state of the savage, were by its aid [the doctrine of miraclesl’continued in strong action in the civilised world. Mythic episodes which Europeans would have rejected contemptuously if told of savage deities or heroes, only required to be adapted to appropriate local details, and to be set forth as miracles in the life of some superhuman personage to obtain as of old a place of credit and honour in history’ (Tylor, Pvinr/tiue CuZfzre,P)1-71f;). Writings in which miracles figure are not historical ’in the modern and scientific sense of the word. Many of the OT and NT narratives in which ‘wonders’ figure have been treated in special articles, and from various points of view. See, for instance, CREATION, DELUGE, DEnioxs,
1 Prof. Cheyne *as one of the first critics to apply this method in the case of hiblical study. See in EBW, the articles ‘Cosmogony’(G446&), ‘Deluge’(7 54 6 8 ) , ‘Jonah’ (13 7363), also Th. Rem. Z I I - Z I ~ (~877). For more recent examples see C REATION , DELUGE, J ONAH , P URIM , etc., and cp D E M ~ N S ! T EMPTATION. See also S. A. Cook ‘Israel and Totemism, in IQJ?, April 1902 ; A. S. Peake, a;t. ‘Unclean,’in Hastings’ Dl’.

A wonder’ then is something which cannot be explained from the ordinary experience of mankind in general at a given time, but, as Hobbes pointed out (Leviathan, chap. 27), ‘ seeing admiration and wonder a r e consequent to the knowledge wherewith men are endued, some more, some less, it followeth that the same thing may be a miracle to one and not to another.’ As regards many of the wonders that .surrounded them (the wonder of life, the wonder of creation) primitive men would be very much on a level and would all be satisfied with a fanciful explanation : but with regard to others (the wonder or effect of certain herbs, for instance) some men would soon, at first by chance, attain some measure of knowledge and thereby themselves become relatively wonderful and wonder-workers (medicine-men, obi-men). In the eyes of his admirers, however, the man who is relatively wonderful, soon grows to be very much more than this. Obviously, therefore, there is a very close connection between wonders or miracles and myths; the growth and development of both would go on almost, if not quite, simultaneously. Obviously, too, the wonder is closely connected with exorcism and sorcery. ‘Exorcism and sorcery pass insensibly into miracle. If the marvellous results are ascrihed to a supernatural being at enmity with the observers, the art is sorcery; but if ascribed to a friendly supernatural being, the marvellous results are classed as miracles ’ (Herbert Spencer, Principles ofSocioZogu(3l, 1 24”). The very word in English, as we have seen, indicates the way we must take if we wish to understand the meaning of wonders. It is clear that a thorough exzmination of the subject would involve an investigation into the evolution of ideas in general, into psychology, anthropology, comparative religion and mythology. If Dr. Bacon in his new definition of higher criticism is thinking of the comparative method, such an investigation would indeed come within the province of that science. ’ If a new definition of the higher criticism may be permitted so late,’ he says, ‘ we should call it the sfudv of tKe origin and development o ideas ’ ( T r i p l e T r a d i t i o n of the Exodus, xxxiii. ). f

85,f: I18991).

..

5351

5359

WOOD
DLVINATION, , PLAGUES, ACTS, GOSPELS (cp JESUS), M AGIC LAZARUS, ~ s v ,NATIVITY, R E S U R R X T ~ ~ N , hl SIMON SHKITUAL GIFTS TEXPTATION. further R. W. See hlackap, The Mbinprr ~ c h o o land i t s Antecedwts (1863) ; Hugo Winckler Geschichte Israpis, 2 (1900) ; Th. Trede, IV~urder~laube Heia’enium und in der alien Kirche (1901); ln S u p r m a t r m l Rcl. (new ed. IPS). Cp 0. Holtzmann, Leben ]es2’. The following works, amongst others, have to he taken account of: Grant Allen, Evolution o the Idea o God; Clodd, f f Myfhr nnd Dreanrs; Frazer Golden &ugh; Huxley, Hume, also Science and Hebrew TrAdition and Science and Christian Tradition; Lang, CusCona and Myth, and J l y t h , Ritual, and Relig-ion ; Lubbock (.4vehury), On@ o CiviZisation ((5) f 1889); J . M. Robertson, Christianity and Mvthology ( 1 9 ~ ) ; Herbert Spencer The Study o Sociology (CSS) and Principles f .of Sociology; ‘fylor, Ear& Hist. of Mankind ((31, 1878), Antltmopology (188r), Primitive Culture ((4, 1891). Cp also Darwin, Desrcnt of Man ; Quatrefages, ’The Hi6lilan Species .(ZSS) ; Tolstoy, What is Religion ? X I . A. C. WOOD (Yy), Gen. 6 14. See FOREST, and the special articles. WOOF (3V),Lev. 1 3 4 8 RVmg. ‘knitted stuff.’ See W EAVING , 7. WOOL (%$, &w ; €PION). The sources of wool “available in ancient times to the inhabitants of Palestine were three in number-the sheep, the camel, and the .goat ; but, except where another animal is distinctly mentioned (Mk. 1 6 Mt. 3 4 I S. 1913), we may assume that the wool of the sheep is meant. An Arabic saying .(cp Bochart. Hieruz. 2442) declares that the best wool is that of the nakcrd (see S HEEP) ; it was this wool which hlesha, king of Moab, sent as tribute to the king of Israel ( 2 K. 3 4 RV). Wool is probably the worst conductor of heat of all the materials used for clothing, and for this reason aniongst others has from the earliest times been used as a covering. The finest wool is that cut from the young sheep of about eight months old, and is known as l a m b s wool (Prov. 2723 26) ; later .shearings yield the wether wool, which is either unwashed or washed, the animal in the latter case being washed before submitting to the shears. As is still the case in pastoral countries, the annual sheep-shearing was in ancient times an occasion of great gatherings and rejoicings ( I S. 25n 2 S . 1323; see FEASTS, 5 2f:). T h e wool is usually cut a few days after the washing, by which time it has dried. A skilful shearer will remove the whole of the fleece in a continuous sheet, which is then sorted according to its quality. The wool-stapler, whilst doing this, removes the larger and more conspicuous impurities, bits of straw, etc. The wool is then carefully washed with soft water and soap, a n d dried. At this stage it is still in the condition of matted locks as they come from the body of the animal, a n d before it can k woven it must be teazed, combed e .and spun into a thread (see W EAVING). According to E V the wool of Damascus was especially prized at Tyre (Ezek. 27 18) ; 6,however, substitutes ‘ wool from hliletus,’ and Davidson says, ‘possibly, wool of Zachar.’ I t is a matter for the textual critic (see J A V A N , 5 I ) g. On the prohibition to wear ‘ a mingled stuff, wool and linen together’ (Lev. 1919 Dt. 2211 t). see L IHEN , 7, A. E. S. n. 2 , and Crit. Bib.a d Zoc.
OHN -&ET&

WORMWOOD
or caterpillar of some clothes-moth is intended.
MOTH.
2. y>in, t&‘ (also ny$n and ny%n, from a root meaning ‘ to gnaw’ [Del. Neb. Lang. 66f. ; PruZ. 1151; cp niy$nn,!and niy& as applied to the teeth), arid . . 3. m!, rimmdh (cp Ar. yamma ‘ berotten,’ , i m m a P ” ‘rottenness ’), are the words most commonly employed, and-as in vulgar speech-indicate not so mnch earthworms (which indeed are found in Palestine, cp below), as any elongated crawling animal. 6 renders generally by U K ~ X ~ and in Job uaxpia, and less often uij\l.is, E, Vg. vermis, putredo, tinpa. The tZ& which was bred in the manna (Ex. 1620, in n. 24 virnmdh) means obviously the larva of those flies which breed in organic matter. In hot countries flies breed with extraordinary rapidity, and maggots not uncommonly appear in sores, etc. ; whence several allnsions are made in the O T and Apocrypha to their parasitical tendencies and especially to their habit of preying upon the dead (Job 7 5 2126 3420 but cp d Is. 1411,cp also I Macc. 2 6 2 Ecclus. 1011193).‘ In this connection we find in pre-Christian times the first reference to the ‘ fire and worm ’ which afterwards became popularly connected with the notions of a future punishment (Is. 6 6 2 4 ; cp Ecclus. 717 Judith 1617 and Mk. 9 4 4 8 ) . Death by worms, regarded with special horror by the ancients (Herod.4205), is said to have Iieen the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes ( 2 Macc. 9 5 f X ) and of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12 23) : hut it must not he forpotte; that such statements about eminent hut unpopular characters were frequently made by their political opponents in order to discredit their memory. Cp DISEASES, adJn., and HEKOD. 12, ad@=. 5 The reference to the destruction of vineyards (Dt. 2839). or of gonrds (Jon. 4 7), by a ‘worm,’ probably indicates some beetle-or rather insect - larva-which injures roots or other parts of plants ; but it may refer to certain members of the Myyriapoda (Centipedes), which have similar destructive habits and are very numerous in Palestine. With the former we may compare the Gk. ?$, Tc and Lat. cunvoZvvuhs, a kind of vine-weevil (cp Pliny, “2247). Wood-worms, the larm of wood-boring beetles, though unmentioned in MT, are referred to in Bar. 6 19 [20],in Prov. 1 2 4 @, where a bad woman is likened to 2v .$$A? ur&A?t (=a.~ i*ninryz), also 2 5 z o a e,& u m p 6 s [&I ipariy Kai U K & A ? ~ 66Ao oGrws A 6 r q bv8pb5 B A ~ K T PKap8iav and the Vg. of 2 S. 23 8 L (ips; est quasi tenerrimus ligni vermicuds, qui octingentos interfecit impetu uno). Finally we may note the metaphorical use of ‘ worm’ to denote a man of low estate or in a miserable position Job 256 Ps. 22 EL71 Is. 41 14 [not 651, cp I. 13654 : & m e U K ~ ; ~ V &i yaiy ( [
-I

See

KC~TO

saOris.

WORD (0Aoroc). On ‘ the Word’ see LOCOS. WORLD. ‘The .words a r e : ( I ) YTK, &e:,Gen. 1 2 4 ;
t&Z, I s. 2 8 ; (3) Dip, ‘8him;Ps. 73 12 ; (4) hiled, Ps. 17 1.1 ; (5) Slv, /iPrleZ, Is. 38 IT ; (6) a&, Heb. 1z ; (7) fi ; (8) K ~ U ~ W , 18 36 ; (9) o;rovp&q, Heb. 25. See E ARTH. Jn. WORM. Worm is the rendering of the following Hebrew words :I . D?, ~cis( ~ 4 sin Is. 5 1 8 , t where obviously the larva ) 1 ‘ Wool is a modified form of hair, distinguished hy it? slender soft, and wavy or ciirly structure, and by t ‘ehighly imhricated or serrated surface of its filaments’ . . ‘At what point indeed it can he said that an animal fibre ceases to be hair and becomes wool it is impossible to determine, because in every characteristic the one class by imperceptible gradations merges into the other, so that a continuous chain can be formed from the finest and softest merino to the rigid bristles of the wild hoar.’-Ency. Brit.&)), ‘wool.’ S.V.
(2)

+,

hci, @dZ2 dye:, AV ‘worms of the earth’ (Mi. 7 17), might possibly refer to true earth-worms (Oligochzta) ; but the literal meaning is ‘ crawling things (cp 6 U ~ P O Y T E S rev) of the earth,’ and it is more likely that serpents are intended (so RV, cp Dt. 3224). Of the 0lisoch;eta a dozen species from Palestine have been described, all belonging to the genus Allolobojho~a to which fourteen out of the nineteen British species belong. kive of the dozen-viz., A . rdiginora, A . chlorotica, A.,Wida, A . veneta, and A . rosea-are also British. They are not found in the arid and sandy regions, hut are hy no means uncommon in the more fertile districts. Cp TOLA, COLOURS, 8 14. 5. lp, 4 v i . 6 Hos. 5 12AVw. ( K ~ V T ~ O[BAQ]=lt$P?). The ~ , V word properly means ‘ rottenness’ (see BDB) ; in Prov. 12 4 1430, however, @ gives U K ~ A ? ais, just as in Job it renders ~, D? by ualrpia (see above). wi&& also occurs in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 43 20, where Taylor U Q R 10 471 ; Wisdom o Ben Sira f IxiiJ) adopts the rendering ‘skin-bottle,’ and refers to Geiger’; view of Job 13 28 ( ~ U K ~ 45). which he apparently favours. The S , text, however, is moSt probably corrupt ; for >pi, we should read nh?& briikfith, rendering ‘and he congeals ponds by his cold.’ A . E. s.-s. A. c., 1-4;T. K. c., 5.
4. y11

.

WORMWOOD

(?;g$

3 15 [14l 23 15 Lam. 3 15 19 Am. 5 7 F

Dt. 2918 [17] Prov. 5 4 Jer. 12 ;2 and 1+rvBos Rev.

1 In the difficult passage Job19 26, ‘worms destroy this body,’ i o mention of worms is made by the MT; cp RV, and see JOB D 6 col. 2474. 2

T h e origin of the word Za'a'ncih is obscure, and the references to it in O T are so purely symbolical, that we learn nothing but that it was an edible substance of extreme bitterness ; it is usually coupled with w N j , YZ, or 3g, m i YS(see G ALL ), and once with a??iip m t ~ i r i m(Lam. 315, see BITTER H ERBS ). But a consensus of ancient tradition is in favour of the identification with wormwood, and it may well denote the product of one or more species of Artemisia (perhaps Artemisia juduica) of which as many as seven are enumerated by Tristram (ZWP 331) as found in Palestine.
N. M.W. T T. -D. .

In the N'T adXv ' wrestling' is used as a figure for a spiritual struggle (Eph. 6 12) ; we might have expected p d x v (Delitzsch, in his Heb. NT, renders n p ? ? ~ ) the ; Christian's struggle not being against flesh and blood can hardly be called a ' wrestling. ' But the word came naturally to his lips. T h e palaestra was not, it seems, forbidden to Christians ; the writer of 2 Macc. 4 1 2 8 (cp C AP ) was naturally more sensitive, and denounces the priests of Jerusalem who, in the Hellenising movement under Antiochus Epiphanes, ' hastened to take part in the unlawful provision for thepaLzstra.' The word is happily adopted by RV, following the precedent of ' synagogue ' ; primarily it means a wrestling school. Wrestling was a favourite exercise in ancient Egypt (Wilk. Anc. Eg. 2437 5292). I t is said to have been introduced into the Olympic contests in the eighteenth Olympiad, from which date it continued to form one of T. K. C. the five games of the pmtaihZon.

K EE P ER .

but the meaning is doubtful and even the reading uncertain. See under L AVER, 9 I.

1 The translator seems in this last case to have read n>Spt and in the two cases in Jer. to have wrongly connected the word with root my. a Hos. 12 2 J [3x]belongs to Hosea, who blames Jacob ; the continuation 1s in Z)ZL pg [S-IO]. Vz. 4-6 r5-71 are eulogistic of Jacob. The expression 'turn dross into gold' is from Gunkel, whose treatment of the story shows much insight, though he has missed the probable historical origin of the story.

writing consists in the use of symbols to represent visible objects or the ideas which are associated with those objects ; by phonetic writing is meant the use of etc. See CORD. ( 2 ) ??XW, s&ikcZh, I K.7 17,etc. See NET, 5 . symbols to represent the sounds or combinations of sounds, which constitute some particular language. WRESTLING. I t is reasonable to assume that the When each symbol denotes a single sound, the writing early Hebrews had wrestling-matches. T h e story of is said to be aIplzadetic; when each symbol denotes a Jacob wrestling with the JZihim or divinity (Gen. 3224-31) syllable, the writing is called syZZu6ic. It is probable seems to presuppose this. If the cycle of Jacobthat writing was at first purely ideographic ; but the narratives were as near to the original folk-tales as the oldest systems of writing known to us, namely, the cycle of Samson-narratives, we should perhaps have hieroglyphic writing of Egypt and the cuneiform writfound Jacob indulging like Samson in sportive exhibiing of Babylonia, consist of ideographic and phonetic tions of his strength, for the ancestors of the Hebrews symbols combined in various ways. Both in Egypt (not Samson alone) were imagined as endowed with and in Babylonia the art of writing was practised conHerculean strength (cp Gen. 2910 3145$ 3226). I t is, siderably more than three thousand years before the however, no sport-this wrestling of Jacob with the Christian era. With these systems, however, we are divine being ; it is the conquest of the god of an already not at present concerned, since there is no reason to conquered people which has to be effected. This is the believe that they were at any time in use among the historical meaning of the story. Penuel was possibly ancient Hebrews, who, like their neighbours, the Moabthe citadel of SUCCOTH ( q . x ), and within the precinct of ites, the Phcenicians, and the Aramaeans. employed a the citadel was the sanctuary (see G IDEON , 5 2). T h e purely alphabetic system, consisting of twenty-two Jacob-tribe had 'contended with men' and had preletters, usually known as the Semitic a@hudet. From vailed '-Le., had conquered Succoth and Penuel the Phcenicians this alphabet was borrowed, with certain externally (Judg. 8 16 f. ) ; but its admission to full important modifications, by the Greeks; from the religious privileges had, according to the myth, to be Greeks it passed on to the other nations of Europe, so obtained by force. Sargon carried away the deities of that in popular language the term ' writing ' is confined conquered places ; hut the Jacob-tribe meant to remain to alphabetic writing. When we speak of the writing at Snccoth and Penuel, and consequently had to convert of Egypt and Babylonia, we are liable to forget that in a hostile divinity into a friend. Cyrus did the like at this case ' writing' means something quite different from Babylon by geniality towards the priesthood (C YRUS , understand by it. 9: 6 ) ; the Jacob-tribe chose to describe its victory in the that which we ordinarilySemitic alphabet is extremely The origin of the symbolic language of mythology. The myth grew pale, obscure. I n the ancient world the invention was and the later writers did not understand it. Hosea 2. origin. commonly ascribed to the Phcenicians,l thought that Jacob's conduct was blameworthy ; a later sometimes to the Aramaeans2 or the writer modified the story by the statement that Jacob Egyptians;3 but these theories seem to have been 'wept and made supplication to him,' and it is this based upon mere conjecture, as was the case with so later writer whom modern preachers justifiably follow, many other beliefs current among the ancients respectfor he has shown them how to ' turn dross into gold.' ing the origin of arts, institutions, and the like.' I n The word rendered ' wrestled ' in Gen. 32 (pJw! II. 1241 ; 25 modem times also the theory of the F'hcenician origin \pJ$g, 2. 26 [zjl)has been connected by some with p?!, 'ci&i&, ) of the alphabet has been frequently maintained, and ' dust, as if= ' to dust oneself' ;others compare M H p?:, 'i6akak, many scholars have endeavoured to show that the Phce'to entangle.' Rut probably the word is corrupt (see Cvit. Bia.). nicians simply adapted to their own use certain of the 1 Plin. Nut. Hist. 5 IZ [13] (see also 7 57) ; Lucan, Pharsal.

WREATHEN WORK.

(I)

n i y , ' m h , EX. 2814,

3 220. 2 Diod. Sic. 5 74, Clem.Alex. Stromateis, 116. 3 Plato Phredrus, 58, 274 D Cicero, De nat. deor. 3 22. 4 That'any genuine traditionlabout the origin of the alphabet should have survived must appear highly improbable when we consider that the inventors of the vowel- oints were completely foreotten, although they lived in a muc%later and a far more civilised age.

.

5355

5356

WRITING
phonetic signs employed in Egyptian writing. Others have supposed that the alphabet was developed out of the Babylonian cuneiform c l ~ a r a c t e r . ~But, as Winckler has recently observed, the arguments for attributing the invention of the alphabet to the Phaenicians are far from s a t i ~ f a c t o r y . ~ e have, it is true, no right to W maintain, with Winckler, that the hypothesis is improbable in itself, for mere generalisations, such as the statement that mercantile peoples are deficient in creative power, prove nothing at all. Nor is much to be said in favour of the rival theory put forward by him, namely, that the alphabet was invented in Babylonia, since the Babylonians, so far as we can ascertain at present, never made use of it for writing their own language. The inscriptions in the Semitic character which appear on some Babylonian and Assyrian weights and contract-tablets prove, indeed, that the alphabet was known in Babylonia ; but as these inscriptions are in the Aramaic language it would seem that the Semitic character was introduced into Babylonia by Aramzans. T h e arguments which Winckler derives from the shapes of the letters are likewise very precarious. From the fact that ‘Ayin is represented by a circle he argues that this letter was not originally included in the alphabet and that the Semitic character must therefore have been invented by a people to whom the sound of ‘Ayin was unknown. But the circular form of ‘Ayin may be explained by the obvious supposition that it is meant to represent an I eye ’ (Heb. ‘dyin), precisely as every other letter seems to have been originally a rude portrait of some well-known object, the name of which happened to bcgin with the sound intended. In some cases both the shape and the n.xme of the letter clearly indicate the object chosen, and this serves to show that the inventors of the alphabet spoke a Semitic language. But whether they were Phoenicians, Aramzans, or members of some other Semitic people it is at present impossible to decide. 4’ We are not to s!ippose that the inventors of the alphabet endeavoured to distinguish the sounds of their language with scientific precision. It would appear that when two or more consonantal sounds bore a certain resemblance t.0 one another they were sometimes represented by a single letter ; thus the ancient Semitic alphabet had only one sign for the two sibilants which were afterwards known as Sin and Shin and distinguished by a diacritical point (t., ) . In this case the d distinction of sound must have existed from the beginning (as is proved by comparative philology), and became even more marked in later times; we may therefore assume that it existed likewise in the intermediate period, when the alphabet was invented. Since the inventors of the alphabet ignored this distinction, they may have ignored others also, and accordingly the fact that the ancient Semitic character does not discriminate between certain sounds which are expressed by different letters in Arabic (e.g.,

WRITING
Some Phcenician and Aramaic inscriptions are perhaps rather older than these two ; but there is no clear evidence to show how long before the ninth century the Semitic alphabet was invented. Noldeke has observed that the style of the inscription of Mesh2 seems to imply the existence of a historical literature among the Moahites of the period, and what we know of the Moabites would lead us to suppose that their civilisation was decidedly less advanced than that of their neighhours to the W . Thus we may conclude with certainty that at the time of Mesha‘ the Semitic alphabet was not a very recent invention. On the other hand, the fact that in the ninth century B . C . the shapes of the letters were almost identical in regions so far apart as Moab and Ya’di does not favour the view that the alphabet had been for many centuries in common use, for in that case local types would have tended to diverge more widely, as is shown by the later history of Semitic writing. Moreover, the tablets discovered at Tell-el-Amarna in 1887 prove that about 1400B . C . the Canaanite princes conducted their official correspondence with the Egyptian court in the Babylonian language and character. It would be very rash to conclude from this that the cuneiform character was then commonly employed by the natives of Canaan, for documents written in a foreign language and in an extremely difficult character can have been intelligible only to a small class of professional scribes, most of them, perhaps, slaves imported from other countries.’ But it is evident that if the Canaanite princes employed, in their correspondence with Egypt, a language which was neither that of Canaan nor that of Egypt, we may with some plausibility conjecture that the Canaanites at that period had na writing of their own. The O T does not supply us with the means of discovering how or when the alphabet became known to the Israelites. I n Genesis, as has often been remarked, there is no allusion to writing of any kind, whereas Moses is.represented, even in the older parts of Exodus (JE), as practising the art (Ex. 244). But from this we cannot safely conclude more than that writing had been in use among the Israelites for some time before the period of the narrator, who probahly lived in the ninth century B . C . Nor does Judg. 5 1 4 throw any light on the question ; whatever the phrase YZD k @may mean, m it cannot be explained as ‘ the pen of the scribe,‘ since o?t$ never has this sense either in Hebrew or Aramaic. I t is remarkable that the ordinary Hebrew noun for ‘ writing,’ namely Y .,...D ,from which ??b ‘ a scribe ’ is ~ derived, has no etymological connection with any of the verbs which signify ‘ t o write’ ( ~ mppn, o d i ) , and , this fact tends to support the theory that is a foreign word ; whether it was borrowed from the Assyrian, as some scholars suppose, is uncertain. The name of the old Canaanite city l ~ D - f l : l ~ (Josh. 15 15f: Judg. 1 I I J ) might suggest that the word l?p, in the sense of ‘writing,’ was known already to the Canaanites before the Israelite invasion. hut since the root 1 8 0 2 has a varietyof meanings (in Hedrew ‘ to count ‘to relate,’ in Aramaic ‘to shave the hair ’), it is altogether iilegitimate to found any argument upon the name in question. Cp KIRJATH-SErHER. In the days of the later kings of Judah, the art of writing must have been very extensively employed, to 4. Types. judge by the frequent allusions to it in the Prophets, especially Isaiah. T h e oldest extant specimens of Israelite writing, namely the Siloam inscription and a number of engraved seals and gems, 1 Even in Babylonia itself, where the language of the Tell-elAmarna tablets was actually spoken, the knowledge of the cuneiform character was, in all prohahility, confined to a small proportion of the inhabitants. 2 It is possible that 1;D in i;p-n;?p has no connection with the Heh. root 190, since Phcen. D may correspond to Heb. 7, e.,c.,Phcen. :2~=Heh. 731. The existence of a root ygi may be inferred from the name of the place p.DT(@?, ‘ t o Ziphron,’
Nu. 349). 4 See Dr. TBS pp. xiv-xvii.

2 and -f-,

e i)
and

is no proof

that the alphabet originated among a people who in pronunciation assimilated these sounds to one another. Of all known inscriptions in the Semitic character the oldest which can be dated with certainty, namely the inscription of Meshd king of Moab, 3 . belongs to the earlier half of the ninth century B.C. See M E S H A . T h e inscription of Panammk, king of Ya’di, in the extreme N. of Syria, appears to have been set up about the beginning of the eighth century; it is written in a peculiar Aramaic dialect.6
1 De Rou@ M4mob.s sur rovioine izyjtienne de Z’aiphaZef jAknicien (Pads 1874) ’ Masper; Hist. ancienne des @urUples de r ~ r i ~ n t ( 4 1 (Paris,’ 1893). 75 ;

Deecke in ZDMG31 [18771102-116. Wi. Gesclz. Isr. l(r895) ~ & f : The reasons which make It necessary to suspend our judrment on this question are well pointed out by Lidzharski in his
2

WRITING
seem to belong to this period. Here the shapes of the letters closely resemble those in the inscription of king Mesha'. One of the oldest Phoenician inscriptions, that which is found on the fragments of a bronze bowl dedicated to the Baal of Lebanon ( U S i. no. 5 , see PHBNICIA, 0 18),exhibits much the same type. But the ordinary Phcenician writing has a decidedly more modern appearance ; the down-strokes become elongated, so as to present to the eye a series of parallel lines, and the letters thus acquire an air of uniformity which is lacking in the older style. Another type is offered by the Aramaic inscriptions and papyri of the Persian and Macedonian period. The distinctive feature of these is that certain letters ( 2 , 1, y, 1) have open tops, as though their upper portion had been cut off. A further development of this Aramaic writing appears in the Nabataean and Palmyrene inscriptions, of the first century B.C. and onwards, which are specially remarkable for their frequent ligatures or joining of the letters, a feature common to all the later styles of Aramaic writing in use among Christians. As the Aramaic language gradually superseded Hebrew and the kindred dialects spoken in Palestine, the Aramaic letters became more and more familiar to the Jews. T h e coins of the Hasmonaran dynasty and those struck during the two Jewish revolts (66-70and 132-135 A. D .) bear legends in the old Hebrew character ; hut some Jewish inscriptions of about the time of Christ are in the Aramaic writing, though the language is Hebrew. The particular variety of the Aramaic character which came into use at this period was called by the Jews kl'hZb mh-ubbd' ( y m g XI?), 'square writing,' or k2Lhthdb a J J i r L (-TU! >?p), 'Assyrian writing,' a name probably due to the fact that it was employed by the peoples of NE. Syria. One of the most ancient specimens of the square writing is the inscription over the sepulchre of the BPnE the HZzir (ivn 9m), a Jewish family, near Jerusalem ... ... character bears much resemblance to the Nabataean, but the lines are straighter and the ligatares less frequent. In the fully developed form of the square character the ligatures disappear altogether. There is reason to believe that at the time when the text of the O T was definitely fixed-Le., about the beginning of the second century after Christ-the square character was generally, if not invariably, employed in MSS of the OT.2 Since that period it has continued in use among the Jews with very little modification. Strangely enough, the Samaritans alone remained faithful to the old Hebrew writing, though in their attempt to adorn it they gave it a somewhat fantastic a p p e a r a n ~ e . ~ At a period which it is impossible to determine accurately, but in any case several centuries before the Christian era, the Semitic alphabet was introduced into Arabia and employed for writing various Arabian dialects, as is proved by many inscriptions which have been discovered in that country. Some of these were, until lately, known by the incorrect name Himyaritic. The alphabet in which they are written is evidently derived from that of the northern Semites ; but it contains several additional consonants, invented for the purpose of expressing certain Arabic sounds which
1 See Chwolson, Corpus Inso. He& no. 6 (St. Petershurg, 1882). 2 In the recently discovered fragments of Aquila's Greek translation of the OT (ed. F. C. Burkitt, Cambridge, 1897) the Divine name y-h-w-his written in a corrupt form of the old Hebrew alphabet, not, as we might have expected, in the square character. But it does not necessarily follow that the Hebrew MSS used by Aquila were written in the old alphabet fhrougho u t ; the Divine Name, which, it must be remembered, was not pronounced by the reader, may still have been written in the ancient style after the rest of the text had been modernised. 3 Tables showing the forms of the letters used by the N. Semitic nations at different periods are found in Stade's Lehrbuch der hedrriischen Grammatik (1879) and Niildeke's Kurz@assre syuisckz Gramnratik (1880, (2)1898), hut far fuller information may be obtained from the magnificent table hy Euting in Chwolson's Corpus rnscr. Neb. See also P . Berger, Hisfoirr d Z'dc~criturcdam ranfiquW (Paris, 1891). e

WRITING
were not represented in the older Semitic writing. T h e so-called Himyaritic inscriptions fall into two classes, according to dialect-those in Sabaean and those in Minaean. Both dialects seem to have been spoken in S. Arabia at about the same period, and to have been carried northwards by mercantile colonists. Among these inscriptions there are very few of which the date can be ascertained even approximately. The theory of Glaser, Homniel, Sayce, and others, that the Minzean inscriptions are of enormous antiquity and that the latest of them were set up about 1000 B.c., has been completely overthrown by the discovery of a Minaran inscription which is dated from ' the twenty-second year of king Ptolemy.' so that it cannot be older than the third century B . c . ~ T h e dialect of the so-called Thaniiidaean inscriptions, recently discovered at AlUlB, about 150 m. NNW. of Medina, differs grpatly both from the Sabaean and the Minaran ; but the writinq is nearly the same. Whether D. H. Muller be right in considering the Thamiidzan character an earlier form of the Sabaean is uncertain. By the beginning of the seventh century of our era both the Thamiidaean and the Sabwan writing had become obsolete in Arabia, for the alphabet employed by the Arabs at that time-the parent of the Arabic character now in use-was derived from the Nabatzan. I n Eastern Africa, however, the S a b z a n alphabet left a descendant, namely the very peculiar character known as the athiopic. T h e names by which the letters of the alphabet were known among the Jews appear for the first time in the 5. Names of LXX text of Lam. 1-4. Here the MSS, it IS true, vary to a considerable extent ; but the letters. there can be no doubt that the names a r e substantially identical with those which were used by the Jews in the Middle Ages. It would seem, however, that in very early times certain of these names were pronounced otherwise, since the names of the Greek letters, which were borrowed from the Phoenicians, sometimes diverge notably from the ordinary Jewish forms ; thus I'dppa (for rapAa) and 'PG ( c p Heb. dui, * head ' ) appear to have a more primitive vocalisation yp c A or yiph) and d.1 i c~ p ~ x s pvs). or than Accordingly the fact that is not a Hebrew but an Aramaic form cannot be regarded as proving anything with respect to the ultimate origin of the names. That the names were liable to undergo great change in various times and places is shown, moreover, by the Ethiopic alphabet, in which several of the names are quite different. W e must not therefore be surprised to find that among the Jewish names of the letters there are some of which the meaning is altogether obscure, namely, yo, I:!, n'D, n q '-IG qip, and >$ The order in which the letters were arranged is shown by the acrostich poems in the OT (Pss. 25 34 37 1115 119 145 Prov. 3110-31 Lam. 1). In Lam. 6. Order 2-4 the order is slightly different, since Of the 5 precedes p3 Among the Phoenicians the arrangement of the letters seems to have been the same as among the Jews, for the Greek alphabet in its primitive form corresponded to the Hebrew. By what principle the order was originally fixed it is impossible to discover. Ancient inscrintions in the Semitic alphabet, like the Direction of oldest inscriptions *in Greek, are the writing, written from right to left. The sole punctuation, etc. exceptions to this rule are found among the Sabaean inscriptions, a few of which are written ~ 0 u u 7 p 0 ~ ~ 6 6 v - i . e .in ,

(a

(a

. ,
1

-

See the papers by D H M in the Vienna Oriental ourn (Dzc

Wieitev Zeitsch?: f z r die Kunde des Morgerrlandes{8 1-i~ 1; 6-

after the Thamrid (Gk. ol @apouSqvoi), an Arabian tribe who inhabited those parts about the fourth century after Christ. The authors of these inscri tions, however, call themselves not Thamrid,but Li&yyrin(p&; see D H M .%jig. Denk. 3 See LAMENTATIONS. a u s Arabien (Vienna, 1889).

166 (1894). 2 Named

53.59

5360

In any case the 0.r contains very many textual corruptions which are due s.mply to wrong divisions of words.2 Such mistakes were greatly facilitated by the absence of special forms for final letters, like those used in the writing of the later Jews, Syrians, and Arabs. In Hebrew, style this is not :allowed, and in order to fill up a line the scribes are accustomed to ' expand ' certain letters, especially N, 7, 5, n, and o. The letters of the Semitic alphabet were originally used as consonants only, the vowels being unexpressed. Such a :system must, of course, give rise Ortho- to endless ambiguities, for in the Semitic graphy* languages some of the most important grammatical distinctions (e.g., the difference between an active and a passire verb) often depend solely on the vowels. The reason which led the Semites to content themselves with this imperfect method seems to have been that writing was at first employed only for short and well-known formulze, such as votive inscriptions, funereal inscriptions, and the like, not for literary works properly so-called. At length certain of the consonants (H, n, 1, and came to be used also as vowels ; hut this modification was introduced very slowly. In Phcenician inscriptions the vowels are never expressed save in a few cases at the end of a word. In the inscription of King Meshd and the Siloam inscription the vowel-letters are inserted somewhat more freely, but very much less freely than in the present text of the OT.3 Among the Israelites, before the exile, the general rule seems to have b-en that no vowels were expressed in writing except the diphthongs au and ai (which were repres e n t d by 1 and 7 respectively), and most of the long roweis a t the end of words. The use of vowel letters for 22, 5, and i in the middle of words-which is frequent in the MT-apparently came into fashion a t a very late period, as a cxreful examination of 6 shows.4 The 5 orthography of the ?resent Jewish OT is probably the result of a revision (or of several revisions) by the scribes, for in all parts of the O T the use of the vowel-letters (or, as they are often called, matres kctionis) is approximately the same, thai: is to say, the oldest books do not, in this respect, differ materially from the latest. But though we find a general uniformity of spelling throughout the whole of the OT, there are numberless inconsistencies in matters of detail, and it often happens that within the space of a few verses the same word is spelt in two or more different ways. In no case. therefore, have me any guarantee that the vowel-letters in our text go back to the time of the author, and to base historical arguments on the spelling is quite illegitim~tte.~Even

is very rarely the case in copies of the OT.
Though the insertion of vowel-letters doubtless excluded certain ambiguities, the writing was still very far from being an adequate representation of 9. vowelpoints, etc. the language. Not only many of the unexpressed. At length, several centuries after the Christian era, systematic efforts were made by the Jews, the Syrians, and the Arabs to remove this practical inconvenience. It cannot be a mere accident that aniong all three nations the introduction of the so-called vowelpoints took place about the same period ; but how and where the idea originated is quite uncertain. As early as the fifth century after Christ Syrian scribes had adopted the practice of distinguishing certain words, which, though spelt alike. were pronounced differently, by means of a dot placed above or below ; and it has been conjectured by Ewald and others that this was the origin both of the Syrian and of the Jewish systems of vocalisation. In any case, it would seem that at the beginning of the fifth century the vowel-points were unknown to the Jews, and that by the end of the eighth century they had been in use for some time. The Jewish scholars who introduced these signs into the text of the O T are commonly known .as the iMassoretes-i. e . , traditionalists, from the late Heh. word mass5rzlh (nlbp), ' tradition.' Respecting their names and dates history is altogether silent. Though their work was of enormous importance, it must be remembered that aniong the Jews, as among the Syrians and Arabs, the vowel-points have never been regarded as an essential part of the writing ; in particular the MSS of the Law and the Prophets, from which lessons were read in the synagogues, appear to have been generally, if not always, written without points, down to the present day. Those MSS of the Hebrew Or which are ' pointed ' fall into two principal classes, according to the method of vocalisation eniployed. T h e great majority exhibit the so-called Palesh i m 2 system, whilst others, of which the best-known example is the St. Petershurg Codex of the Prophets written in 916 A . D . (published in facsimile by Strack in 18761, have the Babylonian (or superlinear) vowelpoints. These two systems possess so much in common that they must necessarily be derived from the same original ; but the precise relationship between them is still disputed. Both represent a very late stage in the pronunciation of the Hebrew language, or rather they express the language, not as it was actually spoken, but as it was chanted in the synagogues of the period.3 T h e most important difference between the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems is, that the Palestinian alone has a special sign for the short vowel e (SPghdj. The Rabylonian system underwent considerable change in course of time, as is shown by the different forms which it assumes in our MSS ; but it was ignored altogether by the great Jewish commentators and grammarians of the Middle Ages, and a t length sank into oblivion, until it 1 See, c.g., Co. Das Buch d . Propheien L'nPrhi6.l raP6. 2.. 7. zr

*'

7)

1 The Bthiopic writing, as is well known, always runs from left to right ' the oldest extant specimens of this writing, namely two inscriptions at -4ksllrn in Abyssinia, probably belong to th; sixth century after Christ. 2 See Dr. TBS xxx-xxxii. 3 Thus the Siloam inscription has WR (thrice) for 'C"?, and D x n l (twice) for C ' l W l 7 . 4 Dr. TBS p. rxxiiif: It mnst be remembered that many words which the later Jews pronounced with 8 or zi originally had the diphthong a i . Thus when we find yiy and in in the Siloam inscription, we sre not to reckon these as cases in which d was expressed by 1. J. Thus the well-known fact that the form ~ 1 is sometimes 7 employed in M T instead of the fem. "7 proves nothing as to the usage of the ancient Hehrew, since the 1 in this case was probablyinserted bylatescribes (cp Dr. Deut. Introd. p. lxxxviii). In htoabite the masc. form is written ~ 7 and in Phcenician , inscriptions we find ~7 for masc. and fem. alike, the pronunciation of course varying according to the gender.

2 .\Is0 called ' Tillerinn,' from the fact that the city of 'l'ilvzri:ts wa4 one uf the principal seats of Jewish learning from the aecond century onwards. 3 The proniinciation of Hebrew words given in the NT and other Greek sources is often more primitive than the ronuhciation expressed bv the vowel-points. It should also { e noticed that the consonant text and .the vocalisation are frequently at variance with one another, since the Former presupposes a more ancient pronunciation than the latter. Thus in the very first word of the Hebrew OT, n'eH12, the H must originally have been pronounced as a conionant, but is treated by the hfassoretes as mute.

5361

5362

WRITING
became known to European Hebraists in the nineteenth century. Both the Palestinian and the Babylonian systems of vocalisation are combined with an extremely elaborate system of accents, which were intended to indicate not only the place of the accent in individual words, but also the musical intonation adopted in chanting, and hence the greater or less degree of connection between the different

YEAR
parts of sentences.' A special method of accentuation is employed in the poetical books of the OT--i.e., Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.Z It is scarcely necessary to observe that for us the value of the accents consists in the light which they throw, not upon the real meaning of the text, but upon the manner in which the text was understood A. A. B. by the Massoretes.

X

Y
YARN. See L INEN , I, W EAVING , and on z S. 1 7 z ~ f . [ROGELIM] see BED, 5 3. I . p y , 'Zpn, Prov.716 RV. See L INEN , 5 ~ a 2. Ezek. . ZT 19 RV &W?), See uZAL. 3. n ~ pr,n i h e h , 1 K . 10 28 AV . See C HARIOT , 5 5, n. 3 , WEAVIAG, $ a. YEAR (?l?y, Jinih). Day, month, and year are all indicated by nature itself as means for the measurement of time. These three units are quite independent, however, and stand in no direct or simple relationship to each other, and wherever an artificial reduction of the larger unit to terms of either of the two smaller is attempted in the absence of exact astrononiical knowledge, inaccuracies and dislocations become inevitable. These are not so great when the largest of the three units-the year-is measured in terms of the smallest-the day ; but they become serious when the middle unit-the month-is taken as the basis for establishing a ratio. The former course (making the day the unit) was taken by the Egyptians : they had observed that after 1 In Egypt. about 365 days the sun returns to the . same position in the celestial sphere, and accordingly fixed their year as being 365 days. They altogether left out of account any reference to the course of the moon, although some reminiscence of it may be preserved in their division of the year into twelve equal parts of thirty days each, to which were added the five remaining days as supernumerary (the socalled epugomenai). Even thus, however, it was an artificial product that bad been manufactured from the natural year which contains 5 hours 4 8 minutes and 4 8 seconds more than 365 complete d a y s ; and the Egyptian year, which on every fourth anniversary began a day too soon, was still a vague <ear, although it was only after the lapse of 1 4 6 1 Egyptian years-a so-called Sothis period (see C HRONOLOGY , Q 19)-that the difference amounted to a year too many. The second course (making the month the unit) was chosen by Mohammed, whose intention in prohibiting a, In Islam. the occasional insertion of an intercalary month was to frame a rational calendar, but who thereby only succeeded in creating another artificial product completely differing from the natural year, namely the so-called purely lunar year which with its twelve lunar months ( 3 5 4 to 355 days) annually begins the new year some ten or eleven days too soon. T h e calendar of Israel and the Jews avoided both the extremes just indicated, which are the necessary 3. In Israel. consequences of a too exclusive regard either to the day or to the month in determining the length of the year. With the Israelites the method to be followed was decided by practice, unhampered by any dominating theory about the natural year. This of course did not exclude modifications as time advanced, and ultimately the modifications led in the case of the Jewish calendar to a product much more complicated than is exhibited either in the Egyptian or in the Mohammedan: it has, however, this advantage over both, that the Hebrews, at least in their reckoning of the years, though not always in their delimitation of them, remained in agreement with the number of the natural years. With the ancient Israelites, as probably at the outset with all peoples, the year was a solar one, that is to A solar say, a natural year which was sufficiently defined for practical purposes by the regular recurrence of the seasons. T o this also the Hebrew word for year seems to have reference; for in @, Emih. at least, as in $ V L ~ U T ~ S [&os, CLvos], annus [annulus], jahr, y e a r (cp Gk. yupoGv), it seems permissible to conjecture some sort of reference to a return to a starting-point, a repetition of the same circular course. The solar character of the Hebrew year, however, is demonstrated beyond all doubt by the ancient determinations of time according to the seasons of the year and the agricultural operations dependent on these. Thus, for example, the annually recurring harvest festival or feast of weeks, dated by the harvest (Ex. 2316a 3422 Dt. 1 6 g ) , the feast of tabernacles, dated by the ingathering (Dt. 1613). It is proved also by indications which clearly show that stated religious or political actions-dependent in fact on the period of the year- always occurred at the same time of the year. Thus for example the autumn festival falls at the end of the year (Ex. 23166 3422) ; the going forth of the king to battle at the return of the year ( z S . 11 I I K. 2022 26 I Ch. 201 z Ch. 3610). Lastly it is shown by the ancient names of months which are unmistakably connected with the regular recurrence of phenomena of the seasons (see M ONTH , 5 1 ) . The length of the year was hardly so accurately determined as to render impossible all uncertainty in its Probably its limits to 5. Its length. measurement. some extent depended on weatherconditions and the labours necessitated by these. At least, we have no indication from the earlier times which would point to any exact deflnition of the year by any precise number of days. Not till post-exilic time does P seem to betray acquaintance with the fact that the year consists of 365 days, when he so states the number of the years of Enoch's life (Gen. 523 ; see E NOCH , 6 ) or when he represents the Flood, which began on the seventeenth day of the second month, as coming to an end on the twenty-seventh day of the second month of the following year (Gen. 7 II 8 14). This last procedure is certainly to be taken as showing

*.

1 As to the points in which the Babylonian accentuation differs from the Palestinian see Wickes' Treafise on fhc Accenfuafion of the Twenty-one &caZled Prose Books of f k r O T , Oxford, 1887, pp. 142-150. It should be mentioned that Dr. Wirkes regards the term ' Babylonian' as a misnomer. 2 See Wickes, A Treatise on fhr Accentuation o fke Thrrr f so-caIled PorticaZ Books, Oxford, 1881.

5363

5364

YEAR
that, assuming as he did for primitif e times an accurate dating according to lunar months oi which twelve made an ordinary year of :j55 days, he wished by adding on ten days more to bring the year, thus reckoned, up to the full length of a natural year of 365 days. Whether also the feast of the New Year (for which we have evidence from the exilic period; Ezek. 401, cp Lev. 2591, which was observed, not on the first but on the tenth day of the seventh month, is based on a similar reckoning, can hardly be made out. At all events, whatever may have been the freedom allowed in the measurement of any particular year, there are certain facts which show that the real length of the actual year was by no means altogether obscure even in the pre-exilic period. According to the reckoning in use then (in the preexilic period) the change of the year took place in 6. Beginning. autumn, when all the fruits of the earth had been gathered in and the former rain ( n l i o . 7~87-eh) u-as preparing the fields for fresh tillage and a renewal of the yearly cycle. The autumn festival, or feast of the ingathering (l,aa? 15, bug hd'dfTph), with which the yearly round of feasts was closed, was observed ' a t the outgoing of the year' ( v Q g n u p , 6&2h hnJZnZh-Ex. 23 16) or ' at the year's revolution'' (i,r+c F p , t~kziphuth n haSJin<ih-Ex. 3422). These definitions of the oldest legislation are so clear and distinct as to make further proof unnecessary. If any further proof were requisite, i t might be urged that the
passover could not have been observed in accordance with the precept of the newly-found law unless the new year was in autumn in the eighteenth year of Josiah (2 K. 23 23 ; cp 22 3 ) and that on no other assumption can the fdurth year of Jehoiakid he made t o synchronise with the first year of Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 25 I ) and with the year of the battle of Carcheniish (Jer. 46 2. Such inferential arguments are needless. Besides, the ) text of these passages (cp 4 )is not in a satisfactory condition. 5

YEAR
that we are unable to see in it clear evidence of a year of twelve months; it is possible even that Judah may have b&n thought of as the thirteenth district, with this as its special privilege that it became liable to the tax only in intercalary months. In substance, then, what we are able to say is this : In the pre-exilic period it was natural years that regulated the chronology, the changr of the year fell in autumn, and the months, which followed the moon, were allowed to take their own way, without concerning themselves much about the year. As in so many other things, the exile brought profound changes into the Jewish Calendar. Away 8. Exilic from their native soil, with which their changes. worship had stood in such intimate connection-a connection which Deuteronomy indeed had already been recently seeking to sei-erthey were now all the readier to take over the Babylonian calendar, which they had learned to rccognise as the more scientifically regulated one. This change announces itself in a new terminology for the months and in a transference of the beginning of the year. Down to the exile the months had been designated by their ancient names (so even in Deuteronomy) ; in the exile comes in the custom of distinguishing the months from each other by numbers, and also of placing the first month in spring (cp, to begin with, the exilic redactors of Jeremiah and Kings, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, then P and the final redactor of the Hexateuch [e.g., Dt. 13], and also Chronicles). In course of time even the foreign Babylonian names for the months began to come in ; but except in Ezra615 (in an Aramaic passage) and in Neh. ( I I 2 1 615) their ordinal numbers are also a t the same time given (so in Esther and in Macc.).' The transference of the beginning of the year to the spring is already witnessed to by the numbering of the months beginning, as in the Babylonian Calendar, with the spring month ; but we have, besides, express evidence in the ordinance of P in Ex. 122 'This [the current, Passover] month shall be unto you the beginning of months : it shall be the first month of the year to you.' The evidence here supplied does not lose in weight even if the verse should prove to be due to a later editor. For in any case the change of the era is carried back to a divine command. given of old to Moses and Aaron while still in the land of Egypt. But this of itself proves that the Israelites had once made use of another era (that beginning in autumn), and that its place was taken by the spring era only at a later date.
I n P's account of the deluge a further proof of this author's knowledge of the earlier employment of an autnmn era is ohtained, only if we hold ourselves shut up to the conclusioii that he considered the flood to have hegun in autumn. But in that case P has not only carried hack the later designations of the months to that patriarchal period, but has also adapted these in academic fashion to the autumn era by designating in accordance with this latter era, as the second month, that which by the spring era was the eighth (cp Gen. 7 11 84f: 13f:).

It is wholly unwarranted, however, to regard the autumn as marking the change of the economic year, and to set over against this, as the ordinary calendar yenr, a civil year that had its commencement in spring. There is absolutely no evidence for any such system of double accounts before the exile. T h e expression ' a t the return of the year '(n!$n n>rd+ ; 2 S.
11 I I K. 20 2 2 26), which is used more than once with reference to campaigns beginning in spring, does not speak of a beginning of the year, hut is couched in such general terms a t o contain a s definite date only when one knows that the spring is the time for campaign3 to begin, and in itself means nothing more than 'in the following year.'

There is all the less reason for this postulating of a beginning of the year in spring-in the interests of the late P (Ex. 122), and in contradiction to the terms of the oldest legislation (Ex. 2316 34zz)-inasmuch as the period of the exile itself bears witness to the observance of the New Year festival in autumn, and in the end the old custom once more triumphed over the later innovation which for a time had held the year to begin in spring. See N E W Y EAR , 5 I . The question as to the relation of the months to the year is niore difficult. For the earlier ages it is im7. Relation possible to say anything with certainty. ofyearto Probably the months and the years simply months. attemptran a parallel course. without any being made to fix a point of coincidence at which the year and the monthly cycle might take a common beginning. T h e fact that in the exile the New Year festival was held on the tenth day of a month without any sense of strangeness (Ezek. 401, cp Lev. 259) seems to point to this. When necessity arose. doubtless no difficulty was felt in making a thirteenth month follow upon the ordinary twelve within the same year ; but there was not as yet any definite rule, and the text of I li. 47-20, which speaks of the division of Solomon's kingdom into twelve districts, each of which was called upon to maintain the expenses of the royal household for a month, has unfortunately reached us in such an imperfect state of preservation

At what date this change came in cannot be gathered from the passage before us ; but the whole manner of P, which is to carry back all the ordinances of the postexilic community to Moses, renders it probable that in this ordinance also we see the sanctioning of an innovation that had been introduced a t the time of the exile, and the date of which admits of being definitely fixed by means of the new designations the months then received. The memory of the older custom of beginning the year in autumn was still vivid during the exile and took concrete shape in an ecclesiastical New Year's festival (Ezek. 401 Lev. 259 Nu. 29 I ; cp Lev. 2324). In this way from henceforward there was observed, alongside of the official civil New Year in spring. an ecclesiastical New Year in autumn, which was held by the ancient pre-exilic custom. The beginning of the civil year fell thus on the first day of the first month (or Nisan. corresponding to what had formerly been known as Abib).
1

I n Zech. 1 7 7 I the names of the months are a later insertion.

171

5365

5366

YEAR
T h e ecclesiastical New Year on the other hand did not remain unaltered. At first it was, as already stated, observed according to Ezek. 401 (cp Lev. 25g)'on the tenth of the seventh month (Tishri) ; but afterwards it was transferred to the 1st of Tishri (Lev. 3324 Nu. 291 [PI).
The day, in tlie passages last cited, indeed is called no longer tbh, ~ 8 5 haSSanZh, a s is the day of the new year in Ezek. 401, but 7yTlT Oi', yam tZni'Zh, 'day of blowing of trumpets' (Nu. 29 I ; cp 3pllg f1121, eikr8s ti~12'Zh, 'a memorial of blowing of trumpets',' Lev: 23 24); but Lev. 25 8 leaves 110 room for doubt that the ' trum et blowing * must taken as the characteristic feature of the %.e, Year's day, and that the exilic New Year festival had to give up its place to the day of atonement (o'Wp Ei,, yam kipp&+m, Lev. 23 27f: ; cp N E W YEAR)now transferred to loth of Tishri.

YEAR
this are the regulations of the Mishnah which (Rish R a s h h i n d , 1I ) distinguishes four commencements of the year, of which the 1st of Elul, the new year for the tithing of cattle, and the 1st of Shebat, the n e y year for tlie fruit of fruit-trees, may be left out of account, as being merely the terms with reference to which accurate reckoning of sacred dues was fixed. What is important to notice here is that the 1st of Xisan is there given as the new year for kings and for the sacred feasts (that is, as in Josephus, for religious affairs), whilst the 1st of Tishri is the new year for the years, for the Sabbatical years, for the years of Jubilee, for tree-plantiugs and vegetables (and so for the enumeration of the years). Hence the rabbinical formula explains itself: " Nisan is the first of the months of the year, but Tishri is the beginning of the year." From that day to the present the 1st of Tishri has continued to be New Year's Day, and thus it is correct to say that the reckoning of the year according to the vernal era, which was adopted by the Jews in the exile from the Babylonians and afterwards received the sanction of P, was only an episode-a large one it is true, from the sixth to the last century ~ . c . - i n the history of the Hebrew and Jewish Calendar. Throughout all these changes the year had remained solar. Owing to the very absence of any definite inflexible rule,2-which, had it existed in the early times, must necessarily have been incomplete and inaccurate -for the insertion of the intercalary months, the year was saved from becoming a vague year. This great advantage was purchased, it is true, at some cost; it made the year of variable length, according as a month had been inserted or not, and according to the number of months of twenty-nine days and thirty days respectively contained in it ; and the 1st of Nisan, like New Year's Day, the 1st of Tishri, did not always occur at precisely the same point of time but varied within a limited period, just as the yearly Christian festivals now (Easter, Ascension, Whitsunday) are not fixed but niovable feasts.
The same peculiarities are still dis layed by the Jewish year even after the adoption of a special rupe for intercalation. Even a t as late a date as the beginning of the Christian era it was the part of the Sanhedrin in each individual case to decide on the ground of direct observation whether the insertion of a thirteenth month was required or not, just as also the visibility of the crescent moon decided whether or not the month had ended on the twenty-ninth day. The intercalary month was introduced after Adar and before Nisan, and the decision as to the insertion (l?Xp) of a month and the conversion of the year into an intercalary year (nllbp 7@,4 waseffected in the course of the year itself, often not till the month Adar and even then sometimes not till after the feast of Purim Y i n other words hardlv fourteen davs before the beeinnine bf the intercalarv month, which also bore the name of Adar (lW2, Vl, or

How the insertion of a thirteenth month which from time to time was necessary was arranged, we have no means of knowing, the O T being silent on the subject. T h e fact, however, that such insertion was actually made in order to keep the beginning of the year in approximate coincidence with the vernal equinox, does not admit of doubt; it was the practice of the Babylonians from whom the entire new calendar was borrowed. The arrangement thus made was not disturbed till long afterwards, and even then probably only on account g. Seleucidan of the Seleucidan calendar which made the beginning of the year in autumn. calendar. At the same time i t remains a question whether any such alteration in the manner of reckoning time can be proved from I Macc., for there are two opposing views as to the interpretation of the dates there given. Wellhausen (ZJG 208) maintains that in I Macc. also the Seleucidan autumnal era is followed. On the other side range themselves, amongst others, Cornill (Die siedzig Jahmochen DanieZss. 2 0 f:, 1889) and Schiirer with convincing reasons for concluding that I Macc. in its dates follows the Babylonian vernal era taken over by the Jews during the exile.
They urge :(I) the dates would not fit the events to which they are assigned, if the Seleucidan era he assumed. T o take a simple example, the events related in I Macc. 10 1-21 imperatively demand a longer space than the fourteen days which are all that can he given them on the view adopted by Wellhausen. (2) The designation of the months hy ordinal numbers, of which the first is given to the month that occurs in spring, would he very strange if the year were held to h e g n in autumn, for in that case the seventh to the twelfth month of a given year would fall in point of time before the first to the sixth of the same year (cp I Macc. 4 52 where the ninth month is Chislev, 10 21 where the seventh is the month of the feast of tabernacles [Tishri], and 1F 14 where the eleventh month is Shebat).l ( 3 ) Similar modifications of the Seleucidan era in accordance with the requirements of local calendars can be shown to have occurred elsewhere. I n fact for the' city of Damascus the use of exactly the same era can be proved (Schiirer).

UT;may conclude that in the first century B.C. (as is to be inferred for the second at any rate from Est. 3 7 )

- -

"$"a m . )

??e?

the official era began the year in the spring (on the 1st of Nisan) ; for it, accordingly, the spring of 312 B.C. marked the beginning of the first year of the Seleucidan era. Nor is it necessary to assume any other mode of reckoning in I Macc., a s a mere discrepancy about a single date is not reason enough for postulating a special era for the book. When we come to the first century of our own era, however, the case is different. For Josephus confines the year that has its beginning in spring to religious &airs only ; for buying and selling and all manner of secular business, on the other hand, the beginning of the year is in autumn (Ant. i. 33).a I n full agreement with
, 1 I f in the present text of Neh. 1 I 2 I Chislev precedes Nisan of the same year (the year that is described as the twentieth) the case is somewhat different from that referred to in the text, their respective designations as ' t h e ninth' and 'the first' month being avoided. Rut too much stress ought not to be laid upon these passages, inasmuch as in Neh. 1 I the name of the king is not given where certainly it might have been expected, and thus the accuracy of the tradition as a whole becomes open to question. 2 The passage runs : 'But Moqes appointed Nisan which is Xanthicus as the first month for their festivals, leading forth the

H e b r e w from Epypt in this month ; he also made the year to begin from it as ;egards all the solemnities of divine worship though as to buying and selling and all other affairs he preserved the ancient order' (Mouu+s 6B rbv N&Y, 6s dun EavOrrc&, &a np3rov &I Tair Boprair Gprue r a d ~oirrov2 Alyirrmv 706s t 'EBpabus rrppoayayh. OGroq 6 aGr4 K I rrpbs &rrduas 72s eis ~b ' a
&;Ov

T& L

$pXFY, c57; /.LCvrOl

€

TpdUELS

KL a

&VAS KdL

?V

& y b

~roirqmv rbv rrpirov r6upov

a No such rule can b; found, as Klostermann has supposed in the institution of the year of jubilee. As any evidence tha; the precepts regarding it were ever observed is wholly wanting the best theory-supposing, what is not very probable, tha; y&Z means intercalation-is that the idea was, by means of an artificial expedient, introduced a s an afterthought, to bring into conformity with the solar year the old year which was erroneously assumed to have been lunar. What P has to tell about the year of jubilee is learned theory mere1y;that was never realised in practice. 3 The rule, naturally, was that each year ought to have six months of twenty-nine days and six months o i thirty days (cp Bk. of Enoch 78 r5J) : it is, however, assumed to be possible in the Mishnah ('Arrikhin 22) that a year may have as few a ; four months, or on the other hand as many a s eight months, of thirty days each. T h e length of the year thus varied from 352 to 356 days, an intercalary year from 382 to 386 days. 4 An ordinary year was called npld? n@.

nm n ' m i r

de+;*ate).
33zv

t wnr m

wm5 p u i uia p*J.

5367

5368

YEAR
Jewish tradition hands down a number of criteria whereby to decide whether a month requires to be inserted or not ; hut in all cases the decisive consideration is this, that the passover, which has to he celebrated at full moon in Nisan (14th Nisan), must not come before the vernal equinox, but must be celebrated when the sun is in Aries (dv K p i @ TOG +Xiou KaOeudros ; Jos. .4nt. iii. 10 j). Of course the Jews of that period had arrived by practice. if they had not already learned it froin the Greeks who h:rd long been acquainted with the eight-years’ cycle (the JKsaarvpis), at the generalisation that, broadly speaking. an intercalary month became necessary thrice every eight years. But ultimately, when regulating their calendar in the fourth century, they adopted from the Greeks the nineteen-years’ cycle ( h u a a Kar8eKaer?]pfs), dating from the Athenian astronomer Meton in the fifth century B .c., in accordance with which seven out of every nineteen years (the 3rd, 6th, 8th. I r t h , 14th. 17th, and 19th) require an intercalary month. When this rule is followed, the difference in nineteen years amounts only to a little over two hours. The Jews of the present day still adhere to this Metonic calendar. Alongside of the division of the year into months, immemorial usage sanctioned a division by the seasons

The nomadic journeys of Heber the Kenite extended to the plain of Zaanaim:’ or-the only correct rendering so far as p $ ~ <concerned--‘the is oak (or, sacred tree?) of Bezaanannirn,’ Judg. 411 (cp MOREH, THE P LAIN OF). It is against A V s interpretation that according to rule ii5r I ’ oak ’) would require the article ; on the other hand, such a name as B EZAANANNIM (4.v.) is against all analogy. See Cn‘t. Bib. T. K. C .

( Z A K X A I O C [AV; Ti. WH], see ZACCAI). I . AV ZaCCheUs an officer belonging to Judas the Maccahee (2 Macc. 10 ~ g ) idehfied by some with the Zacharias of I Macc. ,

ZACCHEUS

an expansion of the

5 56.

gentilic ZARDI [q.u.l, or a religious name='gift of God,' $8 21, 27 ; the attribution of Jashobeam [see I ] to the b'ne Perez-i.e., probably [see PEREZ] to the Zarephathites-and the desi nation of Zabdiel, 2, as 'son of the [southern] Gileadites ' [see %elow], and of Zahdiel, 3, as an Arabian, together with many plausible parallels, favour the former view [Che.] ; < a p S [ s ] q A[BAL]). I. Father of J ASHOBEAM ( I Ch. 27 2 . ) 2 . ' Overseer ' of the priests, temp. Nehemiah (Neh. 1114). He is designated (at first sight very strangely) n9Siiiin-p ( R V ' the son of HAGGEDOI.IM,'RVmS ' one of the great men ' ; A V ' the son of [one of] the great m e n ' ; paSqh [R], p a { q h [K*], l e ~ p t q h uibs TGU peylixwv [KC.amp.. L1 9 ~ O o X P ~ S ~ [AI). It can, however, be shown (cp SHAPHAT, that there was a 3) Gilead in the Ne eh, and the case of ;r.$il ('Gedaliah'), from nqh7i.e., ,171, 'the Gileadite '-justifies us in reading ~tiy\jn-]2, son of the Gileadites' (for parallels in Neh. 38, see PERFUMER). See Crit. Bi6. (Che.). 3. ' The Arabian,' who took off the head of Alexander Balas and sent it to Ptolemy ( I MPCC. 1 17 : {upS~qh 1 b spa$ [ANV], hwr [Pesh.] ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 48 ; {upeiXOS). Possibly the Dioclesof Diod. (Fr. xxxii. ~ O I ) ,see

IMALCUE.

ZABUD (1921, name belonging to the same group a
as Zabdi, Zahdiel, Zebadiah, and in its origin therefore most

2 . A chief publican (bpXcTeXdvqs) who received Jesus on his entry into Jericho (Lk. 191-10). There is much picturesqueness in the narrative; even if only a reflection of the more historical story in Lk. 527-32, no one would wish to lose the beautiful picture of the care of Jesus for the meanest and most despised. T h e improbabilities can hardly be denied. The only complete parallel to Lk. 1 9 5 is in Ju. 1 4 7 , l which occurs in the ill-attested narrative of Nathanael. N o r is the crowd of curious followers ( v . 3 ) natural; it was the object of Jesus on this journey to avoid observation. Zacchaeus's solemn act of atonement for injustice is also very abruptly introduced, nor can one easily believe that Jesus, in his present circumstances, would have openly announced his intention of lodging with a publican (see PUBLICAN). Zacchzus's name, too (=pure, innocent), as Keim ( J e w von Nua. 3 49) points out, is suspiciously prophetic of his act of repentance. To identify him either with NATHANAEL ( 4 . v . ) or with Paul (the little) does not help us a t all. O n Lk. 1 9 4 , see SYCOMORE. A late tradition (CIem. Rec.) makes Zacchzus a comrade of Peter. T K . C. . ZACCUR (793,see NAMES, $5 3 2 , 5 2 ; but, the names with which Zaccur and ZICHRI [q.u.l are grouped being originally ethnics, it is plain that Zaccur and Zichri too, are ethnics which have been converted into personal nAmes; cp ZACHER, ZECHARIAH, and see helow : <arxovp [BNAL]). I . Father ofSHAMMUA(=Shimei), of REUBEN (I ..A); Nu. 134 [PI (<arxv [Bl <a?pou [AI 3.. xovp IF1 Sayxovp [LIZ 2. AV ZaCCiur, 'a Sirneonit;, brother of 'Hammuel= Jerahmeel, and Shimei=Shimeoni; iCh. 4 2 6 (om. B {axoup [Ll). 3. A Merarite Levite brother of SHOHAM=MOH~, 'Ibri= and *Ar%hi-i.e. N. Arabia; ( I Ch. 24 27). 4. An Alaphite Levite, brother of Nethaniah=Ethani, and Ashaelah= Jizreeli or ' Jezreelite' ( I Ch. 25 2 IO; um,youc, <axxovS [Bl);see ZICHRI, IT. 5. Ezra8 14 EVms.( .5 oup [Ll) See ZABUD, 2. 6 . b. Imri (=Amariah=T,erahmeel) in list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, S I J ; EZRA I]., 5s 16[1], 15d), Neh.32 (<@amp [Bl, Saxxovp [E(]). 7. Levite signatory to the covenant, grouped with SHERERIAH and SHEBANIAH, both ethnics (see E ZRA i., % 7) ; Neh. 10 12 [13] (Saxwp [Bl, SUWP [AI, Saxxyp [E(?]). 8. h. Mattaniah (*.e., Ethan1 or Temani), and father of H ANAN (q.u.); Neh. 13 13 (uarxovp [Ll). A writer in PSBA has suggested that Zechariah and the related names may be connected with Zakkara, the name (of uncertain pronunciation) of allies of the Purusati (=PeMtim?see PHILISTINES, $ 3). But if so, why do we not find any of these names given to Israelites of central Palestine (see DOR, 5 z)? It is more probable that Zacher (Zecher) Zaccur, and Zichri with Zechariah were originally the clan:names Zerah and Zarhi respectively. Cp ZERAH. T. K. C.

ZADOK
be paralleled by the long stay of Simon the Righteous in the temple on the Day of Atonement, when he prayed that the sanctuary might not be destroyed (Talm. Jer. Yonza, 52). Cp I NCENSE , 17 , n. On the legendary death of Zacharias. see above, 9. Cp J OHN THE BAPTIST. T. K . C. ZACHER, or, as RV, ZECHER(79s; zaxoyp [B], 3aq. [AI, <e pc [Ll), I Ch. 8 31t, called, in I Ch. 9 37 Z ECHARIAH f$.z., 6). 8 n the possible ethnic character of Zecher see
ACCUR

5 18 56-62.

9. Son of Barachias ; according to Mt. 2335, the last Jewish martyr of the pre-Christian period. All the innocent blood shed on the land (#air?js r?js)from that of Abel to that of Zacharias, son of Barachias ( ' whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar,' see RV) is to be visited, says Jesus, ' on this generation.' Lk., however ( l l 5 1 ) , is without 'son of Barachias,' and Jerome says that ' in the Gospel used by the Nazarenes [the Gospel according to the Hebrews], instead of son ofBarach'as we find written son of 3oiada' (in Z.C. Mt. ). W e may, therefore, disregard the artificial Gnostic and patristic legends, which state (see Protevang. /ac. 2 3 J , and cp Keim, Yesus o N a z a r a , 22~9) f that Herod, who supposed John to be the Messiah, murdered Zacharias the father of John the Baptist in the temple by the altar of sacrifice (see I O ) ; and not less the hypothesis that Jesus refers prophetically to Zacharias the son of Baruch (but Niese has Bapers), who was killed ' in the middle of the temple' in the first Roman war .(Jos. B3 iv. 54). I t is possible, however, that < Barachias' means the father of Zechariah the well-known prophet, and that it is a mere clerical error for Joiada' ; possible, too, that the whole passage has been filled out by a later writer who knew of the horrible murder mentioned by Josephus. This assnmes that Jesus really meant Zechariah b. Jehoiada (Z ECHARIAH , 15). But the reason given for the phrase ' from -4bel to Zechariah b. Jehoiada' (that Chronicles is the last book in the Jewish Canon) seems very 150). According to N. inadequate (see GOSPELS, Schmidt ( / B L 1922, n. I ) , Mt. 2335 once formed part of an ' Apocalypse of Jesus ' (cp Mt. 24) which cannot have been written long before the end of the first century (cp We. ZYG(31 366 ; Skizzen, 6 [1899] 2 . 8 ) . If so, the reference to Zechariah b. Baruch was full of significance to the original readers. I O . The father of J OHN THE B APTIST (q.".), mentioned only in Lk. 1 5 8-23 39-79 32. H e was of the course of Abijah (see Schiir., Hist.ii. 12163),and his home was in an unnamed ' city of Judah.' According to a comparatively early tradition the ' city' is 'Ain K2rim (see B ETH - HACCEREM ), and Mar Zakaryd is the precise spot where Zacharias dwelt ; even recently Schick has spoken a word for this tradition ( Z D PY 22 [18g9] 9 0 . 8 ). But the fact that no name is given most probably indicates that the narrative. in Lk. 1 had but recently arisen when it was admitted by Lk. into his Gospel; the narrator hoped to be a.ble to supply the name later (cp an analogous case in I S. 131, if H. P. Smith's view is ) correct). Though JWTTAH (4.v. is philologically and otherwise improbable, 'Ain KBrirn (Schick) and Hebron (Ew., Keim) are also baseless fancies. From Lk. 1So we should expect some city near the desert to be meant. I t was in the temple, however, that Zacharias is said to have received a divine announcement of the birth of a son ; the announcement is made in terms partly resembling those used to Manoah's wife in Judg. 135J Zacharias craved a sign, and is punished by dumbness until the fulfilment of the promise. When the child is born, the father names him John (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 13). The Pp*otev. /ac. seeks. to improve upon this by making Zacharias the high priest : he enters the Holy of Holies in his sacred attire. We are not told that it was merely ' a voice' (Bath k d ; cp Mt. 317) that Zacharias heard ; the parallel of the oracle given to John Hyrcanns, the high priest, as he was offering incense alone in the temple (Jos. Ant. xiii. 10 3), is therefore imperfect. The long stay of Zacharias in the temple, and the may, however, surprise which it produced (Lk. 1 2 1 ) ~
1 Cp

W O K once $lu, I K . 1 2 6 ; 'just,' 5 6 J ; cp J EHOZADAK , and see S ADDUCEES .~ Similar in meaning is the form Zadduk [iJlSy], which is not unfrequent in post-hihlical times, cp AbTsath, 4 56 ; Strack, ad Zoc. ; Lag. Nom. 2 2 5 8 Saddok is the form generally presupposed by @BNAL [raSSour] ; U ~ W K @BXA in nos. 2-5 [and BA in 2 S. with exception of z S. , 8 17 B I Ch. 29 22 A], is somewhat less common. Other variations are U ~ O U K ,Ezra? 2 [A] ; uaSSovX, Ezek. 40 46 [A] ; uaSSor, * Neh. 11 11 [L], and U&WK, 2 S. 15 24-27 [L] ; u d o v r , 2 S. 8 17 I Ch. 6 38 1531 15 T I [Ll, Neh. 11 I I [N], I K.4 4 [Rl -x z S. S 17 RV (rksd. 6 2 ; [AI ; raSoi, 2 S. 15 27 [AI. SADDUC, SADDU; ua88ovxov [AI); SAUOC Esd. 1 I). (4 I Zadok the son of Ahitub, a priest who held a . Drominent d a c e a t David's court and olaved a " meat 1 The zadok part in securing the throne for David's . of David. successor. W e know nothing of his real oriein. nor can we sav when or , how he became priest in" the royal sanctuary at Jerusalem. W e learn, however, from z S. 817 8 (cp 2023-26, and see Bu. R i . Sa. 247, 154) that he was associated with Abiathar (for the correct reading see Driver, TBS nd Zoc.) and with some of David's own sons in the priestly office a t Jerusalem. Like Abiathar he was true to his sovereign during Absalom's revolt ; like him he bore the ark of Yahw& when David was fleeing eastward from the royal city ; at David's request he with Abiathar bore the palladium of Israel back to the capital, and there with Abiathar did the work of a spy and supplied the king with information about the designs of Absalom and the other rebels. So far Zadok had been closely associated with that older and greater priest who represented the ancient family of the b'nE Eli and that sanctuary a t Shiloh in which they had ministered. In the end he supplanted Abiathar altogether. For Zadok joined Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, captain of the foreign guards, in the harem intrigue which set aside Adonijah the legitimate heir, and placed Solomon the son of Bath-sheba on the throne. Abiathar, on the contrary, stood by Joab, the royal princes, except of course Solomon, and the rest d the more conservative party. Naturally, therefore, when Solomon became king, it was Zadok who anointed him; Abiathar. on the other hand, was banished to 4nathoth ; the family of Eli forfeited the priesthood, md the chief care of the royal chapel or temple a t [erusalem was entrusted to Zadok and his descendants. In their hands it remained down to the time of the :xile ; but we have in I S. 235 f: interesting evidence 2. Zadok that the prior claims of the b'nE Eli and their long before Zadok had been heard and Eli. eminence not forgotten. The author of t h e of, were >assage in question probably belonged to the period of 266) he .he Deuteronomic reform. Like Jeremiah (712 .egarded the temple at Shiloh as the precursor of the .emple at Jerusalem. H e felt, therefore, that some .eason must be given for the fact that the family of Eli which had officiated so long in Shiloh did not con. h u e to do so in Jerusalem. Politica1,grounds and the mthority of the king to regulate the service in his own
I ,

(Phy,

the inaccuracy of the Tg. on Lam. 2 20 (ZECHARIAH, 15)
5373

1 [There is another view as to the origin of Zadok-viz. that t is a modification of a gentilic name. This seems to be favbured iy an examination of the names with which this name is associtted in Chron. and Neh. It will however, be permissible to iold that the Zidkites (originally,' it would appear, settled in he Negeb) may have derived theu name from y i y , a secondary itle of the god worshipped in primitive times b\ this clan ; also hat cultivated Israelites in later times interpreted ' Zadok' as neaning 'just, righteous ' (cp ZEDEKIAH,I).-T. K. c.]

5374

ZADOK
chapel had satisfied the religious ideas of a simpler age, but did not by any means appear siificient to one who had imbibed the ideas of Deuteronomy and regarded the priesthood as directly subject to divine regulation. Accordingly he puts into the month of an anonymous prophet the prediction that Eli's indulgence of his depraved sons was to be visited upon his descendants by the loss of the priesthood. Instead of the b'ns Eli Yahwe was to raise up a new priestly race, and they were to perform priestly functions before the anointed king of Judah. The new family of priests was to share in the perpetual endurance of the royal house. In contrast with the Zadokites, the bnE Eli were to sink into obscurity and want. They were to petition their rivals for the most subordinate offices of the priesthood. Here perhaps the writer is thinking of the priests at the high places who had been driven by Josiah from their occupation, and had to depend for the future on the grace of the priests a t Jerusalem. True, the Deuteronomical code had given the country Levites right to sacrifice a t Jerusalem (Dt. 18 7f. ) ; but though some provision was made for them, the generous rate of D proved impracticable. See ELI. It is in any case certain that Ezekiel during the exile, in a prophecy which was written about 573 B. c., 3. Zadok and :indicated the sole right of the ZadokEzekiel. ites to the priesthood. H e draws the sharpest line of demarcation between the sons of Zadok and other Levites. I n D all Levites form an ideal unity, all have in theory equal rights. Ezekiel, on the contrary, passes sentence on the mere Levites, holding them responsible for that worship on the high places which was to him no better than idolatrous. I n time to come they are, he says, to be debarred from ' approaching' Yahwe in priestly service. They are to be content with menial work, such as the slaughter of victims and cooking their flesh, keeping guard over the temple doors, etc. ; only such Levites as were sons of Zadok might presume to lay the fat and blood on the altar (Ezek. 4415f:). Two changes were yet to be made in the position of the soqs of Zadok, one enhancing their prestige, the 4. Zadok in p. other modifying the exclusiveness of their claims. First, whereas Ezekiel frankly took for granted the novelty of those unique rights which he claimed for the Zadokites, the ' Priestly Code' somewhat later put the divine election of the priestly house back to the very dawn of Israel's history, back to the time when Yahw&chose Aaron as his priest. Hence the Chronicler (I Ch. 653) was obliged to trace the genealogy of Zadok to Eleazar the son of Aaron. In the next place the ideal of Ezekiel was not perfectly realised. No doubt few Levites of inferior family, in proportion to the Zadokite priests, returned under Zerubbahel and later under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 739f: Ezra 8 2 5 ) . Thus the Zadokites cannot have had serious difficulty in securing that pre-eminence which Ezekiel claimed for them. Nevertheless it seems that a certain Daniel of the sons of Ithamar (Ezra 8 2 ; see D ANIEL , 3 ) accompanied Ezra and, owing perhaps to the wealth and consideration which his family enjoyed, contrived to share in those priestly privileges which D had assigned to all the Levites. Such, a t least, is the ingenious theory of Kautzsch (St. KY., 1890, p. 778f:), and we may in any case be sure that some Levites who did not claim origin from Zadok were priests in the second temple. I n their favour, then, the theory of descent was modified. It was said that Aaron had two sons who left issue : Eleazar, father of that line t o which legitimate high priests belonged, and Ithamar, the ancestor of legitimate priests but not of legitimate high priests (so P in Ex. 6 2 3 Lev. 106 Nu. 428, so also I Ch. 246). T h e Chronicler assigns sixteen classes to the sons of Eleazar-ie., the Zadokites-and half that number to the descendants of Ithamar (I Ch. 244). In this way also he is able partially to reconcile the double

ZALMON
priesthood of Zadok and Abiathar with the notions of his own time, since, as descendants of Ithamar, the b n e Eli were often lawful priests, though not high priests. See E LEAZAR , ELI, ITHAMAR, cp, further, and

[L]), a son of Rehoboam ( 2 Ch. 1119). Pcrhaps from nm=5xam*; note @E* and c p R AHAM (Che.).
; €IC c e ~ w p [B] ; om. A ; c l w p [L]), a place on the way to Edom, where Jehoram, king of Judah, 'rose up by night and smote the Edomites who had surrounded him ' ( z K. 8 21). See J EHORAM , z. It is strange to find that he also smote ' the captains of the chariots,' and we are in doubt as to the true reference of the following clause, ' a n d the people fled to their tents.' According to Benzinger and Kittel, after v. Z I U , the original narrative must have stated how Jehoram was surrounded in Zair (?) by the Edomites ; v. zxb (beginning 35.5 02 K $ ~ - w ! , E V ' a n d he rose [up] by night ') must r i a i e a defeat of Jehoram which nearly issued in the death or captivity of the king. T h e people who fled can only be the men of Judah. , Stade, in Z A T W 21 337-340 ( I ~ o I )once more examines the passage, 2 K . 8 21-24, reaffirming his conclusion in G VZ 1537, n. I , so far as regards taking oiix as the subject of 03, and x$n as an intentional alteration or L correction. y Instead of > ~ - , z p 7 n N 1 , Benzinger and Kittel would read something like (or iFu) i ' 7'1~1. Both, however, hesitate to ? 1! ? identify Zair. Ewald thought of Zoar (1YX); it is objected that this place-name in B is q y o p or uiyop (implying y= ), whereas L Zair is u a w p , uiwp (Le., y= 9); Buhl, Edomifm,65. The see
BK

ZAIR (in locative

npy

6

case, however, becomes entirely altered, if ~ [ l lhas been misl ~ written (as in other passages) for t~>&. It is a plausible theory t h a t the p3;sa"~es relative to Kdom in z Samuel and Kings(mnst, if nut all of tlicni) i n their oriAinal form referred to 'Arani '-i.e., Jerahrnccl, rdrlier than 12 Edoin (cp SAUI , 6 3 : J I J K T l I E e I . , 2 ; K i u i x ; S A I T . V a L L t x u t . ; Zoiintr). 2 K . 8 2 1 iiuw beronies plain. Emending the text in accordance with numerous analogies we get 'And Joram passed over to Mis$ur and all the chariots with Am, and [ h a m ] the Jerahmeelites 'smote him and the captains of the chariots; and the people fled to their tents.' Misgur was presumably a N. Arahian town, so called from the region of Missur or Misrim (see MIZRAIM). It may have been originally intended in {he list given in Josh. 15 52-54 by ZIOR
V.).

ZALMON (fiO>s, see $ 4). T h e name occurs twice in the OT, more frequently in the Talmud, but without topographical data (Neub. Ghg. 275). I (eppwv [BAL], aeppwv . in Moore], a e l p w v [Eus. O S 29573, without indication of site]). The name given in M T to a mountain near Shechem (Judg. 948-k). In the underlying story, however, the scene of thf: doings of Abimelech seems to have been placed in the Negeh, m and near a place called Cusham; Jerahmeel-Cusham may also (hut cp SHECHEM TOWER OF) be referred to. It is probably, therefore, jome mountain of a Jerahmeelite range, and @M's reading may

[aM

1 One might naturally think of Gerizim ; the argument offered ror connecting the name with the southern peak of Hermon is

perfectly absurd (see Moore, Jun'ges, 265).

5375

5376

ZALMON

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH

mentionedwithZ~~~~[g.w.](Judg.8 , Ps. 8 3 r r ) . His 84 be taken to confirm this. For 11~1” a t p p v ) is probably a ( name (the pointing of w-hich seems designed to suggest popular corruptionof iu3ni.,’and we shall seefsee ZALMON, ii.) that p $ r is not improbably a popular corruption of $ ~ p p the interpretation ‘ protection refused ’) is very probably ; now Jerahmeel ’ and ‘ Ishmael ’ are repeatedly used ac synonyms compounded with that of the old deity @h TEMA). (see SO that in one form of the original story Mt. Jerahmeel may have For the second part of the name we may compare the been spoken of, and in :another Mt. Ishmael. The corruptions ‘ Hermon ’ and ‘Zahnon ’ may of course have been made very OT ~ 1 3 3 , ymn, and perhaps also nyjo on a Nabatzan inscription from Hegra (cp Moore, Judges, z z o ) , or early. The equation, Herman= Jerahmeel, illustrates Enocli 6 6 where the fallen angels are said to have descended on hlt. the first part of the place-name 5 ~ y (Josh. 1927; cp 1 Hermon. Probably Mt. Jerahmeel was meant in the original a p g , v 1 3 , and see Neubauer, Afheneum, 28th Feb. . story ; six of the names of the fallen angels are clearly coxu t forms of Jerrhmeel. rhe early legends may all have a Jerag1885 ; Baethg. Beitr. 8 n 0 . S A. C. . meelite or N. Arabian setting. Cp Z A L M ~ N A H . ZAMBRI, 1. (ZAMBPBI [BIB-pic [AI) I Esd. 9 3 4 RV 2 . AV S ALMON ( U E X ~ ~ W [BK] ; ueXpw [R“]), accordV (AV Zambis)= Ezra 1042 AMARIAH, 3. ing to most, a mountain or mountain-range (Ps. 6814 2. ({ap@p[c]L [AKV]) I Macc. 226, RV ZIMKI, q.v. [IS]+), the dark rocks of which (as if ~i&rmeant ‘ darkcolonred,’ from w‘&y ; cp ni&) set off the brilliance of ZAMOTH (zAMoe [BA]), I Esd.gzg=Ezra 1027. the snow, when, as in the depth of winter, snow-falls ZATTU. occurred. The psalmist is thought to compare the dead ZAMZUMMIM ( D V 3 ~ ZOXOMEIN [Bl, - M M G I N ~ ~ ; bodies, or perhaps the glistening arms or ornaments, of slain warriors to snow on Zalmon. Wetzstein (A6h. [Ba.bl. Z O M Z O M M E ~ N[A], Z O M M ~ I N [FL]), a branch appended to Del. H i d , and elsewhere) compares the , of the R EPHAIM ( g . ~ . ) so called by the Ammonites (Dt. auakpuvoo of Ptol. 5 1 5 (vat: l‘ect. ahuaiapor, ahuasaecos) 22o)t. Some compare Ar. zantzanma. ‘a distant rustling which is a name for the HaurHn mountain range (alluding sound,’ and zizim, the hissing, whis’tling sound made to the dark volcanic rocks). This is thought t o he conby the jinn of the desert in the night’ (so Schwally,, firmed by reference to the J e M y a u r i n in v. 15 [16], Z A T W , 1898, p. 138, and W. R Smith, up. Dr. Deut. 40). where Wetzstein regards the phrase n m x i n as a But these early names are so liable to corruption that the view picturesque description of the crater-formation of this highly-volcanic region (so Che. Ps.(’) ; Guthe, ZDPV, given elsewhere of the probable variant Z UZIM (q.v.) is perhaps T. K. C. more probable. 1889, p. 231 ; Buhl, cautiously, Pal. 1 1 8 ; but not ZANOAH (nsji, probably an expanded Jerahmeelite GASm. HG 550). The whole passage, however, seems to be corrupt, and an clan-name [cp Shelah and Sha’ul], and, if so, preadequate restoration can only be hoped for by a searching resumably to be added to the group2 containing Jaazaniah, examination of the whole passage (see Che. Ps.12)). Among the Jezaniah, Aznoth-tabor, Uzzen-sheerah ; the superficially current emendations of ]l&s, Krochmal’s n??r (derived from obvious meaning ‘ stench,’ though defensible [N AMES , ? Tg.) is the most plausible. Duhm’s 143g and Lagarde’s l ? 5 1061, is hardly plausible, and the parallels for such a JSYF leave [ l D h in all its unexpected and unlikely prominence. name are all textually suspicious-see, e.g., M ADMEN ,

(I L A I , ’$2,; HAEI [BK], hi [sup ras Aa], HA& [L] ; Pesh. ‘ a l f t ; ‘ilaz’). %e N AMES , 4 . Inferring from the reading of @BL in P S. that the form in y is original, Kittel (‘Chron.’in SBOT)would read p $ y , ‘AlimBn, and Marquart compares ALEMETH(q.z’.)=hLMoN (but both these names are probably csrruptions of ‘Jerahmeel ’). The name i)&, however, is, in itself highly probable. The three names i&s, y 1 ~ 5 s and n3&s all point to the Negeball are , N. Arabian, and all are (or spring from) opular corruptions of >Np,>U-a synonym, be it observed, of {ND~T. Cp Nu. 149, if the view (Crit. Bi6.) is correct which makes c h 10 on r!ani on’$ya, an editorial attempt to make sense of the badly-written words of a gloss on ‘the people of the land,’ viz., o.swnn7. &Npn,. @ , $ ~ y c (‘Jerahmeelites, Ishmaelites, Jerahmeelp ites’); for which numerous parallels can be offered (see Crit. Bib). ‘They are our bread’ and ‘their shadow has departed from them’ are clearly impossible. There is indeed another theory, which would be tempting, if we were to look at these names by themselves, and not In the light of convergent textcritical arguments-viz., to find in )& a trace of the god & (SLM) worshipped at Teima (see But in similar cases a better solution is generally forthcoming. Certainly one of David’s heroes might well have a name corrupted from ‘Ishmael ’ or ‘ Jerahnieel.’ T. K. C.

JALMUNNA).

ZALM0NA.H (n!b?Y; C E A M ~ N A [BAL]), a stage in the wandering in the wilderness (Nu. 3341,f.J.).
The preceding station is Mt. Hor--Le. according to the theory which best accounts for a multitude off&, Mt. Jerahmeel (see MOSES $5 14-18, with 11. 2, COI. 3217). Another name of some part of the chief Jerahmeelite mountain-range was probably Zalmon--i.e., Ishmael (:a synonym of Jerahmeel). It is reasonable to think that the name ‘ Zalmonah ’ is only a doublet of ‘ Hor,’ and that in reality the same mountain district is meant hy both names. See, however, W ANDERINGS , W ILDERNESS OF. T. K. C.

O PHNI , ZIPHRON ; Z A N W [BKAL]). I The name of a personified clan together with its . chief centre, I Ch. 418 ({apwv [BA], [L]). The reputed father is Jekuthiel a name which like Joktheel and Eltekeh is most probably one dfthe many currknt corruptions of Jerahmeei.3 The clan refemed to was therefore of the Negeb (see closing paragraph). 2. A city in the SHEPHELAH . ) , Josh. 1534 ( T a m (g.u [B]). Also (Ges.-Bu.) mentioned in Neh. 313 ({uvwv [L]) and 1130 (om. BKA, &vwe [Wamg. inf.]). Robinson (BR2343) identifies with ZrZn$, a ruin 26 m. s. from ‘Ain Shems (see BETH-SHEMESH). In the preceding and following groups of names in Josh. 1 5 3 4 occur Zorah and Soco, which apparently suits the proposed identification. In OS25838 15912 Zanoah is stated to be in the district of Eleutheropolis. 3. A city in the hill-country of Judah. Josh.1556 ({aaKavuerp, taking in r,pn from v. 57 [B], {avou [L]), Van de Velde and Robinson identify with Za‘nzifa, a ruin SW. ofYuttB (Jutta, mentioned in the preceding group in Josh.). though, being nearlyas far S. as esh-Shuweike (Socoh), it might seem more plausible to connect the name with 2. There is, however, an element of uncertainty in these identifications, owing to the transference of names and to the geographical mistakes of redactors (see Soco;). The original Zanoah, like the original Socoh, was most probably in fhe Negeb. In Neh. 1130 ‘Adullam ’ which follows ‘Zanoah was very probably a Jerahmeelite ’city in the Negeb, and ‘iachish’ has I arisen out of ‘Eshcol’ (see NEGEB, 7). T. K. C.

ZAPHNATH-PAANEAH, RV Zaphenath-paneah
Z.C.) su gests that the same divine name should be read in Nu. 149 : (not C$, ‘their shadow’ 1 ) ha5 departed from them, but Yahwl: is with US.’ BBAFL’Sa ‘ p d smust have arisen out b ~ of b Klipios which a few MSS and the Arm. actually have (cp
1

So Niildeke and Clermont-Ganneau, Neubauer (Atherrc~um,

&

ZALKUNNA (U&
MAN
1

;

CAAMANA [KARaTL], CAA-

[R*]. hut CGAMANA[B]), a Midianiteprincealways

Note that in the M T of Ps. 42 7 161 a * $ ~ a n(Jer4meelim) y has become ~yialn. See MIZAR, T HE H ILL OF.

Neub. The MT, however, makes a very satisfactory sense. In folk-lore the shadow is often identified with the object z87), and the loss of the itself (cp Frazer, GaZden Buug~,Pl1 shadow is regarded as the loss of life itself. [Note however the solution of the text-critical problem given ’elsewher: (ZALMON, Z).] 2 See S HAPHAN UZZEN-SHEERAH. 3 See NEGEB, s’7, and cp JOKTHEEL.

5377

5378

ZAPHON

ZAREPHATH
the mouth of the W i d y er-Rugeib ; but Buhl considers this doubtful (PuL 159 ; Ges.-Bu. S.T. ). Josephus (Ant. xiii. 125) mentions Aawdwv (Schlatter, ZDPV 19224, Avu@wu) ' n o t far from the river Jordan' (ob 3rbppwOev TOO ' I o p ~ d u o u 7ro7apoG). The occurrence of Sapuna as a S. Palestinian placename and of Baal-zephon in the account of the Exodus 2. Later may well make us somewhat critical towards the statements of the traditional researches* text respecting a trans- Jordanic Zaphon. There is also strong reasonto think that when Jeremiah gives prophetic warning of an invasion of Jewish territoryfrom the north ( e . g . , Jer. 1141: 4 6 61) it is not of the Scythians nor of any modern people that he is thinking, but of a people inhabiting a land called Zaphon or Zaphan (cp Z EPHANIAH ). So in Joel2so ' the northern [army],' as EV renders, should rather be ' the Zephonite,' and in Ezek. 3 8 6 it is from the land of Zaphon, in N . Arabia, that the terrible hordes of Gog are to appear. I n Jer. 15 12 too, ' iion from the north ' should not improbably be 'iron from Zaphon' : the following words ' a n d brass' remind us that TUBALC A I N - ~ . ~ . , Kenite Tubal according to the general the view-was, a [the father of] every artificer of brass and iron ' ; and that Rehoboth was in David's time richly supplied with brass (see T EBAH ). It would take too much space to show what a bright light this theory (in connection with the larger historical theory of the relations between Israel-Jndah and Jerahmeel) throws on many passages. But it may be well to point out (referring for details to Crit. Bib.) that underlying the story of the Gileadite Jephthah there is an earlier story of a Jephthah in the Negeb, and that the troublesome word i l j i g ~ (EV northward) in Judg. 1 2 I should probably he rendered 'to Zaphon ' ; the original narrative meant a locality in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. Also that in Josh. 13 27 the mention of Succoth and Zaphon is,followed by 'the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshhon. It appears as if P had access to early lists of names, the geographical reference of which he did not always understand. T. K. C.

given to Joseph by the Pharaoh (Gen. 41 45). For the older explanations see below. It has now become customary to seek explanations of the name from ancient Egyptian. Lenormant compares the title of Ku-mose, a king of the seventeenth dynasty, 'zuf--n-to,'' nourisher of the world ' ( H i s t . unc. de Z'Or., 1869, 1 3 6 3 ) ; this, he holds, explains Zaphnath. Since the time of Lepsius (Einl. m d. C h r o n o l o g i e d e r ~ g y p f e n1382) most scholars , have explained niy3 by the Egyptian pu-'um&(dus Leben, la vie, life). Brugsch (Gesch. & , 1877, p. 248) formerly interpreted the whole name, ' governor of the district of the place of life' ( i . e . , of thesethroitic nome); but in 1891 (DieAegyptologie, 240)he adopted Steindorffs explanation (see ZA 2742), which is alsogiven by a Crum in Hastings' DB16-556,s the only admissible one, under the form jephnacte f8nch (ze[ltl-p-nate[r]-[eeLf-'Dnb), ' God speaks (and) he lives,' Lieblein, however (' Mots figyptiens dansla Bible,' PSBA, May 1898,pp. 2 0 2 8 ) , criticises this, and proposes the form cfnti pa-an&, ' he ,who gives the nourishment of life.' Finally, Marquart (' Chronol. Untersuch. ,' Philologus, 7 676 f.) thinks that n] ( = p )indicates that Joseph was a worshipper of Iten, the solar disk, the god honoured by Anienhotep 1V. ; nidal is misplaced, and belongs to the name of Joseph's wife (D~IK). The present writer held out as long as he could for an Egyptian explanation, regarding niax as a corruption of niya, and explaining the latter in Lepsius' way ; he inclined to read Joseph's Egyptian name a s Pu-'un&, or rather Pianhi, which is the name of a famous king of the twenty-fifth dynasty ; this might mark the date of the Joseph narrative in its present form ; see E GYPT , 5 6 5 J , JOSEPH ii., @ 4, I I. I t is of course possible that the redactor of the beautiful Joseph-story may have had such a name a s Pianhi in his mind. But it can be made highly probable that underneath our Joseph-story there was another, the scene of which was laid in the Negeb and in the land of MiSrim. If we accept this, we may reasonably suppose that n m p is a corruption or alteration of nwp, and of ~ n i ~T. h e marriages of Joseph and of Eleazar b. Aharon are plainly parallel. Eleazar (Ex. 6 2 5 ) marries a daughter of P UTIEL ( ZZarephathi), and has a son named PHINEHAS Jerahmeel) ; Joseph (= niarries a daughter of Potiphera ( ~ Z a r e p h a t h i ) ,and his own name is called Zarephath-jerahmeel. The marriage of Moses will also be remembered ; his wife's name was Zipporah, which (see MOSES, 5s 2, 4) is most probably a modification or distortion of the place-name Zarephath. The plausibility of Egyptological explanations must be admitted even if we hold that the original narrators had a N. Arabiln, not an Egyptian horizon. Already Jerome says, ' Interpretatur sermone Bgyptio . salvator %undi, eo quod orbem terra: ab imminente famis excidio IiFavit. Onk. gives, ' The man to whom mysteries are revealed ; ps: Jon., ' the man who reveals mysteries. Similarly JOC. Ant. 11.6 I , Pesh., Saad. See also Harkavy, J o x m . As. 15 (1870) 1788; Wiedemann, SammZwzg altag. W&ter, 21 ; Levesque, Reu. Bihl., 1899, PP. 4 1 2 8 T. K. C . ZAPHON (IiBY, cp Sapuna in the Amarna Tablets 17416, a S. Pal. city [see KAT(3) 4791, and BAALZEPHON), a Gadite city-cp the Gadite 1 The . names ~ 3 3 and P*?r-lying 'in the traditional valley ,-i,;, , of the' Jordan (Josh. 13 27 facts* C&AN [B], - W N [AL]), and again, according to RVmg., in the account of the quarrel of + RVmg. the Ephraimites with Jephthah (Judg. 12 I n: ' t o Z A P H O N ' ;KE@EINA [AI, CE@HNA [ L l ; 'northwards' EV and @iB) ; but others question the text (see J EPHTHAH . 3, n. I). It is mentioned after Bethnimrah and Succoth. The Jer. Talm. (Sheb. 9 2 fol. 38 d ) identifies it with inn, the later 'AmathB, Amathus, and mod. 'Amateh, a little to the N. of the ZerkZ (Jabbok) on the E. bank of the Jordan, and at

ZARA (zapa [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1 3 AV, RV ZERAA, IZARACES, RV Zarakes ( Z C ~ ~ I O N Z ~ ~ A K H [B],
[AL]), in I Esd. 138 represents the J EHOAHAZ (q.v.)of the corresponding passage z Ch. 364. According t o 2 Ch. Jehoahaz was taken by Necho to Egypt; but in the I Esd. passage he is brought by Joakim out of Egypt. This and other differences seem to be due to the fact that the author of I Esd. was copying from a corrupt or illegible Ne6rew MS.

ZAREPHATH (ng?? ; a CA~EITTA [BAL]), a place on the high-road between Tyre and Sidon (cp Jer. O S
1544), where, according to the traditional text, Elijah resided with a widow after leaving the brook Cherith (I K.1791: cE@ea[A in v. g] ; cp Lk. 426 C A P E T T T ~ THC c l A m ~ l a c ; RV 'Zarephath, in the land of Sidon '). But the difficulty of supposing that this Phmnician woman was a worshipper of Yahwh is ve great, and since (I) CHERITH (p.v.) miist certainly be Rehobox, and (2) even the traditional text elsewhere makes Elijah seek out a refuge in N. Arabia ( I K. 19 ; see MIZRAIM), are compelled to suppose corruption we ofthe text, and to read in I K. 17 9, ' Arise, get thee to Zarephath,
1 For Amathus, cp Burckh. Syr. 346, Buhl, Pal. 259, and Schur. G J V l z z ~ f . It is often mentioned by JOS. (cp Ant. xiii. 3 3 xiv. 5 4 BJi. 8 s, and is placed by him on the Jordan. ) Eus., on the contrary, makes it 21 R. m. from Pella (US21976). 2 Lagarde (06ers. 84, note *) finds the vocalisation strange ; in Palestine we should expect n@! .

5379

5380

ZAREPHATH

ZARETHAN
I t is an easy day’s journey from Ruheibeh (REHOBOTH hlT’s ‘ Cherith’) to Sebaita, though Palmer was accidentally dilayed. Possibly the’name Zarephath, as applied to a Phenician town, appears under the disguise of h1ISREPHOTH-biAInl in Josh. 118

which belongeth to Musur’ (lW!3\ 1fK). Zarephath is also mentioned as a border-city of Canaan in Obad. 20 (uape$eov [Qa]), not, however, on the north, but on the south (see NEGEBp 3’ SEPHARAD).A district of the Negeb in the far 136. S. of Phest$e, was called after the Zarephathitesl S. 3016), and David’s bodyguard was partly composed of Zarephathites. The Phenician Zarephath is the Zarputa of the I t is true ‘ Pelethites,’ not ‘Zarephathites,’ is the traditional 2 Egyptian Pap. Anast. 1 ( R N )IXO), and the Sariptu reading id 2 S. 8 I8 etc. ; but gZGthi and also#eZeth in I Ch. 2 33 (Nu. 16 I) are corrupt, and ought probably to he read ~ l i r Z - of the Taylor inscription of Sennacherib (KB290) 1814)supposes glass-manufacture to ghathi and s l i r J j h t h reipectively (see PELETH, PELETHITES,Muhlau ( H WB(*), and cp PALTI,I). have flourished at Zarephath ; Masius (in Poole’s Syn.) It is also highly probable that the Zarephathites are the foes thought of the smelting of metals. The modern name referred to in 2 S. 21 15-22. The nature of the war with the of Zarephath is Surnfeend, which is now about a mile Philistines here referred to has surprised many readers; it from the coast, but was on the shore in the time of the contrasts strongly with the warfare described in I S. 31. If, however, PZi2im should rather be Slirejkrithim (as certainly Crusaders. See Rob. BR 2475 ; Thomson, L. and B. in I S. 30 76) we can much more easily understand the narrative. C p PHCENICIA, 6. 19 4, 1.5~8 That ‘ Gath and ‘ Gob ’ should rather be ‘ Rehohoth ’ is pointed ont elsewhere (REHOBOTH). It was the warriors of Musri (see In z S. 8 3 12 106 8 we hear of a ‘ Hadad-ezer, king of Zohah,’ whose realm we must suppose to have been either in Syria MIZRAIM, 2 b), famous in later tradition for their unusual 5 stature, who at the time referred to gave David somuch trouble. or in N. Palestine (see ZOBAH). It is however, somewhat more Mugri may originally have included Zarephath and Rehoboth probable that 3371 (Zobah) is a niutilated and corrupt form of (see below, on Gen. 10 1 3 J ) . Not improbably z S. 21 15 8 is nsl!, Siirefath. The name Hadad-ezer for a N. Arabian king is properly the sequel of 2 S. 5 17-25. There is considerable reason erfectly credible. The images’ of the Zarephathites (not to suppose that David conquered Rehohoth (miswritten in 2 S. ’Philistines ’) are spoken of in 2 S. 5 2 r (an old narrative). 21 1 8 8 Gob and G a t h t o n e of the chief cities of his foesand An obscure passage in Judg. 17 7 becomes more significant if the fetched the ark of Y a h d from the house of OBED-EDOM we suppose a reference to Zare9hath. The young Levite there Rehobothite (not ‘the Gittite’). A series of important corspoken of is described as ‘out &f Bethlehem-judah, of the family rections also becomes highly probable in z S. 5 17-25. ‘ Philisof Judah.’ As Budde rightly sees, there is something wrong tines ’ should probably be ‘ Zarephathites’ (pngir); ‘ the valley here ; he would correct ‘ udah into ‘ Moses ’ (cp 18 30). More of Rephaim’ should he ‘the valley of the Jerahmeelites’ ; ‘over plausibly we may read Beth-jerahmeel, from Zarephath of against the mulberry trees’should be ‘over against [Perez of] the Judah’ (’?NDm for mix. on$,! !a nmrn for nnwnn; cp erahmeelites ; ‘in the tops ?f the mulberry tree5’ should he nioiwa for n-gi’ly in Josh.). Tradition seems to connect the ’in Perez of the Jerahmeelites. Perez, be it noted here again, Levites with Kadesh, which was not far from Zarephath. For is surely a corruption of Smarefath (Zarephath) ; see PEREZ. Conother supposed disguises of Zephath or Zarephath, see SHAPHAT, sequently ‘ Baa1;perazim’ may well come from ‘ Baal-sarefath TISHBEH; also MICAH, BOOK OF? 5 4 ) MEARAH; cp u ; (or -$irefathim). Lastly, in the descriptive phrase ‘fi-om Geha hIISREPHOTH-MAIM, TIRZAH, ZARETHAN. 2. T. K. C. as far as the approach to Gezer’ (, 25) the proper names should he ‘ Rehoboth ’ and ‘ Gallesh ’= ‘ Kadesh ’ respectively. It also becomes probab!e that L l ? e r e ~ - u in~ h ’68 has arisen out of ~ z S. ZARETHAN, RV of ( u ) Josh. 3 16 (6) I K.4 12 (c) ‘ Sarefath-auah (strong-Zarephath). Cp P ERAZIM, PEREZ- 746. The same name is clearly represented by ZEREDAH (d) UZZA. This involves parallel corrections in 2 S. 238-23. The 2 Ch. 4 17 and ( e ) I K. 11 26, probably also by ZERERAH A ( ‘Philistines ’ should y e y probably be ‘the Zarephathites!’just Judg. 7 22. ln(a)and(c) MT has in $IT, ;> (6) (locative), as in z 21 ‘Egyptian should doubtless be ‘Migrite (see . MIZRAIM,2 6). David and his gibboritn are fighting in the 5 AV ZARTHANAH ; in (d)m l (locative) ; in (e) mlt?. 6 in m? region which adjoins their own homes (cp HARARITE, J EKAB . ( a )gives caBrarperv [Bl, rapraBrap[eIi+[.4FL] which Hollenberg 1 ZEEL, ZIKLAG), maintain their hold on the ‘ cities of the Jerahto takes to be a development of uapBav ; (6) u e h a v [B], suhra&av meelites’ (see I S. 3029). The ‘Valley of Rephaim’ shoulc! [AI, uap8av [Ll; in (c) u e r p a [Bl, urapa+ [AI,. uapBav [L]; in -gain be the Valley of the Jerahmeelites,’ and ‘ Bethlehem (4 urp8aBaL [Bl, uaSaOa [AI, uapLSa8a [Ll; In (e) i uapapa (7121. r4-16) is an early cxruption (like Ir hammelab) of Beth[BL], 6 uapda [A], and in the long additional passage @BL twice jerahmeel. It may he added that it is probably the ‘Zarephathhas uapsrpa. itei,’ not the ‘ Philistines ’ who fight against Keilah in the true text of I S. 43 1-5. Thud in the story of David, not less than in Let us assume provisionally the correctness of the that of Jacob, there are traces of a more ancient and in some textual readinas, and consider the aeogaohical bearings respects very different underlying narrative. Cp also SAUL. It is moreover in a high degree probable that the ‘En-mishpat ’ of Gen. 147 which is loosely identified in an inserted gloss with ‘Kadish,’ should he corrected into ‘En- (or rather ‘ Ir-) the Chronicler, or the compiler from whom’he drew, Zarephath ’-i.e. ‘fountain (rather, city) of Zarephath.’ Ceridentified Zarethan and Zeredah. From (f) may a t we tainly this helps to produce a consistent story; Kadesh and to Zarephath will be found (see SODOM) be both mentioned in the least infer that Zererah (?) lay to the S. of Abel-meholah. more ancient narrative which underlies our Gen. 14, as, according A more definite result is gained from ( c ) , where (if the to the view proposed above, both names occur in the story which text is in the main correct) it is stated that Zarethan underlies 2 S. 5 17-25. And the only plausible explanation of ‘ Hassophereth’ or ‘ Sophereth’ in Ezra 2 55 Neh. 7 57 is that it was situated near Succoth in the Jordan valley. From is a corruption of the same ancient place-name Zarephath. (6) no inference is possible in the present state of the text. This latter correction points the way to another of much A still more important passage is Josh. 3 16 ( u ) . W e greater importanceviz. o ’ n m (SBr%3.thim) for D’DlnB in Gen. learn from it that Zarethan lay beside the city called 10 14 (see PATHRUSIM). That Misrim, not Mizraim was the son Adam or Adamah (see A D A M , i.). Between Adam or of Ham(Jerahmeel), is a view which sheds a brigdt light on a Adamah and Succoth this passage (see J ERICHO , 8 4), series of obscure names (cp Crit. S & . And no one can fail to i) together with I K. 746, suggests that there was a ford by see at once how easily Zarephath might be miswritten as PUT (Cen 106) and as ZEPHATH (q4.v.). The difficulties of the which the main road crossed the Jordan, and such a ford narrative in Judg. 117 are considered elsewhere (HORMAH).It there is near the Jisr ed-Diimieh, a t the confluence of the may, however, be pointed out again that the starting-point of the Jabbok and the J ORDAN ( q . ~ .§ 7). W e must there, Judahites was Kadesh-‘barnea’ (see J ERICHO , 5 2). There is a place on the way to Hormah, or rather Rahamah (see fore at any rate reject all forms of the theory that HOK~IAH),which they would naturally attack in “passing ; it Zarethan, which lay ’ beside’ that city, was in the is Sdaitaa (24 m. NNE. of ‘Ain Kadis). The ruins (of the vicinity of Beth-shean.2 More acceptable geographically Bywntine eriod) are imposing; doubtless they stand on the is the view of Van de Velde, who connects Zarethan site of mucg older cities. At the entrance of the only pass by which Sebaita can be approached is a ruined fort on the top of with the lofty Karn Tartabeh (the K ~ B of D Mishna),3 ~ the a hill ’ this was probably an appendage of the ancient Zephath the great landmark of the Jordan valley, W. of Jisr edwhich‘in spite of the imperfect phonetic correspondence of th; DBmieh. To this we shall return presently. names must be the Zeph.ith or Zarephath of the OT.3 We can now fully understand the journey of Elijah related in I K. 179. We pass on to the difficult passage marked above as 1 See NEGEB, 5 2. I. The cofnmentaton treat the difficulty of ‘the land of the Philistines too lightly. The view here 1 Der Cfurr. der Alex. Ue6ers. des B. jos.. 17. adopted is that by an error of the scribe 33s has become &g. 2 In PEFQ 1874, p. 182 Conder finds a trace of the name in 2 We might also think of Mesraifeh, N. of Sehaita but this is the ‘Ain Zahrih and the T h d Zahrah, 3 m. W. of Beissn. At geographically less plausible. Least probable of all ’sites is the this point the opposite cliffsapproach so closely that a blockage Nakb eg-Sah. SE. of Kurnub, though this commended itself to of the river (such as a shock of earthquake might occasion) would Robinson (BRN 2 18r). See Trnmbull Kadesh-Bamea. leave its bed temporarily dry. Tyrwhitt Drake(PEFQ 1875,p. 3 See Palmer, Desert o f t k c ExodL<, 371fi; Rowlands the 31) thought of Tell Saran, 3 m. S. of BeisLn ; hut he ielied on discoverer of the site, took the same view (G. Williams, hoh @ A ‘ s corrupt reading urapaw in I K. 7 46. City, 1464) ; also Furrer (Riehm, HWBPJ654J). 3 Rash La-Skdnah, 2 3 ; cp Neubauer, G o g . du TaZm. p. 42 5381 5382

11

’

. ..

‘200,

i.nls;

ZARETH-SHAHAR
It is plausible to infer from the fact that bL places 1126 etc. Jeroboam’s residence at the time of his son’s illness at uapetpa, whilst M T gives the name as Tirzah ( I K. 1417), that the true name of Jeroboam’s city was Tirzah. I t is very possible, however, that both Zererah and ~ I R Z A H(4.v.) conceal some other name, and if our view of Solomon’s reign and o the extraction of Jeroboam is correct (see f SOLOMON), the name underlying them is Z AREPHATH ( q . ~ . ) . This would not, however, justify us in substituting at once Zarephath for Zarethan in (u),(a), (c), ( d ) ,and (f.). The text of these passages urgently needs to be examined with a more searching criticism. The claims of the Karn Sarfabeh deserve at least a hearing (cp J ERICHO , § 2 . and if this site be adopted Abel) nieholah will probably be the oasis of KarBwa. N. of Sartabeh. See J ERICHO , 5 2 It is not necessary to . assume that Sartabeh and Sarethan are connected as names. T h e question is purely geographical. Karn Saptabeh is thus described, ‘ The t i p o i the mountain is a cone, artificially shaped, and some 270 ft. high. On all sides hut the west this is practically unapproachable; on the west a trench has been 3. & m cut and the saddle thus made lower. ‘The 3 s w a b & . ru$s on the summit consist of a central structure with a surrounding wall, and of an aqueduct with cisterns. An old foad leads up from the south, with rock-cut steps in one place. ‘The general appearance of the place is that of a fortress. (PEFM33g6A:) We must not, however, treat this as more than a provisional and (in spirit) conservative conjecture, and it may he permissible to refer in advance to the treatment of passages containing Zererah in Crif. Bi6. See also SWCCOTH, cp Buhl, Pal. 181. and
(e).
I, 2.

ZEBINA (K;’??, as if ‘ bought,’ from Aram. ] T 3 83, I,
of the people into 1 (Che.)] ; cp also Ass.-Aram. ~ 1 3 1 ;Hilprecht gives the Jewish name Zahina from Nippur, fifth century ; <av&va [B], <LLty@eiua [a], om. A2,<c@cvc~ [L]), one of the b’ne Neb0 (?.e. Nadabu ?-see NEBO 111.2) who joined in the league against alien marriages ; Ezra 10 43. t
cp Palm. ~ 1 x 1 hut perhaps really a popular corruption of ~ ~ 1 $,qyno, [the 5 in which name is often corrupted in the mouth

ZEBOIIM or Zeboim (D’3X, D”3Y, D’KIY, Kt.; Dy’rIy Kr. always) Gen. 10 14 Dt. 29 Hos. 1 l . t See
A DMAH A N D ZEBOIM. ZEBOIM. I . T h e valley of Zeboim (Dcq3?;? ’3 ; rai THN C A M G I N [B] ; om. A ; r A l A N THN C&B&IN [LI), a locality, apparently E. of Michmash, mentioned in the description of the path taken by one of the plundering bands of the Philistines ( I S. 1318). The passage should perhaps read thus, ‘another band took the direction of the Gilga12 which looks down upon the valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness.‘ T h e ’ wilderness’ is thought to consist of the summits and precipitous sides of the mountains between the central district of Benjamin and the Jordan valley. There Grove, in 1858, found a wild gorge bearing the name of Shukk-e+-Dn6ri‘ - L e . , ‘ ravine o hyznas,‘ which exactly corresponds to f the Hebrew name. U p this gorge, which is N. of the point at which the W d d y el-Kelt enters the Jordan valley, runs the path by which Grove was conducted from Jericho to Jhkhmris (Smith’s DB(’) 1819). iii. Marti however (ZDPV 7125fl), thinks of the Widy A h pub&, a lateral valley which joins the Wrirzy eZ-KeZt 1 See Cook, Asant. Gloss. 71, who also quotes the Gk. form +e<a@@avap. The initial D may remind us of the initial f3 in p& and ny&yn (see MESHULI.AM, MESHELEMIAH). 2 M T has hx? ‘the border,’ hut this does not suit the following participle. Hence some (We., Dr., Ki., Bu.) read p?;?, rendering ‘the hill,’ and with doubtful justice claiming to follow QB. But can pxl be 50 rendered? H. P. Sm. reads nyXn (ya@ee [El, 7 u YaSaa &I), but qgqn is masc. h x n probably comes from 513 ( I S. 134 IS), which is itself most probably a corruption of (~any. See RACHEL’S SEPULCHRE.

the Greek equivalent of the Semitic 0 K A N ~ N A ~ O(see C A N A N ~ A N Apart from C ). the use of the word in a theological sense (cp e.g. I Cor. 14 12, l+w-a? a v e u p d ~ o u[ = a v e u , u a ~ t ~ G vzealous, or ]. emulous, of spirits [=spiritual gifts] ; and the OT use of N;?, Kannd, of God‘s zeal for the keeping of the law, etc., Ex. 205 3414), it is applied distinctively to a sect whose tenets are virtually identical with those of the ASSASSINS (q.v.), of whom they are indeed the forerunners. As such it occurs only twice in the N T (Lk. 615 Actslr3, AV Z ELOTES ) with reference to SIMON see Mt. 10 4 Mk. 3 18. v. no. 51). For Kavaua~os “Of this sect JUDAS of Galilee was at one time a leader. Against the view that the author of the A s s w x j t i o M&s was a zealot (Schtir. GVI 2635), see APOCALVPTIC L ITERATURE, % 65. ZEBADIAH ( V V . T , WVT, properly an expanded N. Arabian clan-nam;[Che., S:A D, and cp ZABDIEL], thoug! ez B I susceptible of the religious explanation, ‘Yahwk has bestowed, cp Jehozahad, 0 27 ; <a@aSu[BRALI)

ZEALOT (0ZHAWTHC),

‘5

5383

5384

ZEBUDAH
from the S., and makes the plausible suggestion that in ancient times the present LVEdy eZ-FeZf bore the appellation ‘ Valley of hyznas,’ which now survives only in smaller gorges. C p G. A. Smith, H C , 291 ; Buhl, Pal. 98.
2.

ZEBULUN
Unless the -6n of the Greek ZahoulGn is due to assimilation to the Greek termination of that form, which is unlikely, since the o is preserved in the Greek form of the gentilics (see 5 I , begin.) the name must in the second century B.C. have heen pronounced Zabiibn. I t should he noted, however, that Josephus twice gives the name without the termination -on (see above, 5 1, begin.). Moreover, would not a n original Bn have become e n (cp R EUBEN , g 9 i.)?

Hilprecht quotes a Jewish name Zabiida on a tablet It is tempting toexplain from Nippur (5th cent. B.C.). the name ‘ one given [by God].’
Some, however, of the names of this form (f 56) clearly have a gentilic meaning, and Jehoiakim’s mother (like several other queen-mothers) came from the Negeb (see RUMAH). K C. T. .

ZEBUL. zsBoyA [BAL]), a Shechemite, the ‘ruler’ (TV) of the city in the time of Abinielech, represented in the artful speech of Gaal as a mere officer (1’Re) of the king, Judg. 9 2 x 8 See ABIMELECH, AAL , G and cp We. IYG, 27. See also, SHECHEM, $ z ; ‘Zebul’ is a possible corruption of

(5?!,

‘Ishmael.

ZEBULUN,but
Rev. 7 8

ZAIWLON AV of Mt. 413 15 and in times, especially in

If the name was pronounced at all like ZSbiil6n it is difficult not to connect it with the divine name Baal3 Meaning. zebu1 (see Skipwith, /QR 1 1 2 4 2 [1899], . and CD B AALZEBUB .. - -2,) : CD the Punic 6 name (fem. ) 5x.h;~ (CZS i. 158 1 3 , from Tharrus), (inscription from Citium, 1. 4 : Nold. %A and ~ ~ T D U 9 4m-405), and see below, 5 6. If the noun ZBL designates a lofty mansion, especially for a god (see 5 4). it is difficult not to think of the mountain referred to in Dt. 3319 (see S 6), especially as the mountain names Lebanon, Sirion, Hermon all end in -611 (cp Jebel Haur2n and Zion). Zebulun would then be. in a modified sense, a geographical name, like Ephraim and, perhaps, Naphtali.’ Of course there is no suggestion of that kind in Gen. There we seem to have. as often. two ‘ explanations ’ of the name (Gen. OT tions. 3029). Yahwb had presented Leah ( 2 0 a a l with a noble gift iaibed. as if the name were &b:btdfin‘[E?]) ; or her i h i n d ( i d e a l ) , in consideration of Leah’s having presented him with a sixth son, would act (29 a p ) in a certain way: M T *1521* (transliterated by Jerome iezbuleni), the meaning of which is uncertain, as the verb occurs nowhere else.

*.

(pi?], ZebfilCin, eighteen

whereas h>! as c o n s t a n t l y h a the 7. T h e scnj5iio d&cf&a may, however, be simply because zebol was a n archaic word. Even if the old pronunciation WE zi.bul (not aPhiil), which would Z according to traditional pronunciation have given zZbd (like lie etc.), the addition of the termination to zZbd would give zSbiil-; just as minbs becomes mEniis;ih. On the other hand, if the second vowel was 0,the name might be from zub2.l; cp Zubala, a place in LTt. 29f, 18 mils from e@ l . - * in the Jauf (D. H. Miiller, Wam&ni’s Gmg. Sudarabiens, 183 24Jf). ii. Names ending in -On are common (see SIMEON,

132, 5 2671; gentilk ’ ? h ? r ZbBOYhWN[E]ITHC [BAL Jos.], Zebulunite, Nu. 2627, but Zebulonite, Judg. 1211,L). A late writer adds the name o Zebulun in f his reference (Is. 823 b ) to the deportation of Tiglathpileser described in 2 IC. 1529 (see N APHTALI , 5 3). The ‘land of Zebulun,’ he says, had shared the dark fate of the ‘ land of Naphtali.’ Only in one other place, however, do we hear of a land of Zebuhin (see 5 7). The real territorial name may have been Naphtali (see NAIWTALI, 2, end, 4). Oue of the sources of Josh., indeed, seems to have known of twelve towns (Josh. 19 15 b ) which were regarded as Zebulunite. Whether, purposely, however, or accidentally, only five of the names have been preserved (see 5 9 i.). Even the form of the name is rather uncertain. In the Hebrew consonantal text it is spelled in three ways 2. Form. (traditionally vocalised ZEbfilBn, ZEbCiliin and ZEbCllGn : see above, 5 I , begin.), the first of which would suggest a form Ziblbn like Shim‘Bn, SIMEON 5 8). M T . however, vocalises them alike, (p.v. with a full vowel between the last two radicals : zEbii1. i. The word zeJuZ(Ba. NB 129) without the nominal termination, is always written h?, zebu1 (without l), like a ! lP, ,

cp Z I o N ) . Not so names in -in. JEshUrUn and JSdiithfin are no doubt exactly parallel; but till the literary history of those words is more firmly established they afford no sure basis for comparison.2
1 So M T and @L ; @BA avoids the resulting discrepancy b y omitting the clause. 2 Hommel finds names in -8n apart from such names as Haldon, in S. Arabia: KaidOn, ’Saywiin (Glaser : Hommel, AuA U. Abhandl. gg), b u t only from +‘y rmts.

5 8, and

ZDMG 40 729.

5385

5386

ZEBULUN
What elements were united in the population of the district in the times referred to in the earliest notices in the OT we cannot say. On a famous occasion they are said to have manifested a noble valour (Judg. 5 2 0 ) led by their leaders (v. 146).l Cp also 46 I O , and see N APHTALI , 5 3. According to J (Judg. 130) Zebulun was not able to expel the Canaanites from Kitron and Nahalol (g g i. ) ; but they had to join the labour gangs.2 I t should be noted, however, that whilst a similar statement is made about the Naphtalite Canaanites in v. 33, in Gen. 49 15 the subject of the sentence is an Israelite tribe (cp below, n. 3) : it is the Issacharites themselves that join the gangs. Or should the last couplet of v. 15 (Issachar) belong to v. 14 (Zebulun)? \IDS ’ to bear’ (or should we read 5 x 5 ) would then be a play on the name Zebulun, if $21 in Hebrew really meant ‘ to carry’ (cp above, 5 4, end). Moreover it is not at all certain that the subjects to the various verbs in Judg. 127-36 are original ; they may in some cases +e incorrectly ~ u p p l i e d . ~ e cannot tell how the newcomers W came to terms with those who were already in possession. According to the Blessing of Jacob’ indeed Zebulun plants himself on the sea coast (Gen. 49 13). At a much later time, too, ‘the way of the sea’ ( . 7-13) is a 03 synonym for Zebulun or Naphtali. I n Judg. 517 the saying is transferred to Asher (cp Gunkel, Gen.PI 425). The ideas which underlay these statements are lost to US.^ T h e transit traffic was no doubt important. On the via meris from Damascus across the upper Jordan a t Jisr el-banst and down through Galilee to the coast see Schumacher, / a d a n , 55, and PEFQ, Ap. 1889, p. 78 f.,GASm. H G 425-30. This same overland traffic may be what is referred to in the grandiloquent terms of the saying in the ‘ Blessing of Moses ’ (Dt. 3 3 1 8 3 ) : ‘The abundance of the seas do they suck And the hidden things of the sand. .’5 No doubt the Tesfamenf of Zebulun has much to tell about successful fishing and Targ. Onk. speaks even of subduing provinces with sdips 6 whilst Talm. Shdb. 26 refers to the wealth derived from’traffic in purple dyes (cp ’the Issacharite 7), TOLA P UAH : see ISSACHAR to which Targ. pseudo-Jon. and adds the making of glass. The view suggested above however, is perhaps more historical. Stucken, accepting the ’references to maritime life, connects Zebulun with the sign Capricornus

ZEBULUN
mountain where sacrifices were offered. If there was B. Cults. a religious fair, not at all an unlikely thing,2 It would explain the inflow of wealth. What the mountain referred to is it is impossible to guess (cp I SSACHAR , 5 2 ) : we may only be sure that it was not, as the Targum imagined, Zion. I t must have been some mountain not far from Esdraelon. Was it perhaps the mountain where in the Elijah story the sacrifices were offered? W a s the Baal whose defeat was witnessed by Ahab known as Baal-zebul? Ahab’s wife is said to have been called Jezebel. His son, too, when ill sent to inquire of Baal-zebul. No doubt, as the story now reads, Baal-zebu1 was the god That, however, may ?rpou6XBtupa= pa@) of Ekron. be a gloss (or does Ekron come from Jokneam, on the edge of Carmel?) : we have no knowledge anywhere else of such a god at Ekron. The embellished tale of Elijah calling down fire on the messengers may be a very late accretion (Be. K i . ) ; but the mountain on which the prophet (originally Elisha?) was said to have been found sitting by the messengers of the oracleseeking king must surely have been some well-known sacred eminence. May it not have been the height of Baal-zebu1 I And may that not have been the mountain ? of Zebulun of Dt. 33 ~ g a Baal-zebu1 would then naturally suggest the Baal-lebanon of C I S 1 5 , which Jensen identifies with the god Amurru, ‘lord of the mountain ’ ( b t l s b d i : Z A 1 gos)-the Aramaeans ex r e d y 1 say that Ahab’s god is a ‘god of the mountains’(pin +&&a westSemitic form of the storm-god RammBn. Ramman, In F t , shares with gama: the title of bel-bin‘ (5 R 63 2, 35b), oracle-god,’ and as ‘god of the storm-flood’ (68L a67269 he wields both the lightning (I K. 18 38) and the axe (cp z K. 6 4-7?) 4q3 (Zimmern, K A TW, 447s). %en Elisha is hard pressed by the Aramaeans it IF the mountain ’4 that is seen to be full of chariots of fire (2 K. 6 17). Was it, in the original form of the story, earth from that sacred mountain that the Rimmonworshipper wanted (2 K. 5 17) to insure his success (2 K. 5 I a@)? That the holy mountain was identified locally need not prevent the prevalence of a less concrete, more mythological, idea ( S I N A I , CONGREGATION [MOUNT OF], BAAL-ZEBUB). Of the place-names connected with Zebulun Rimmon is not the only one to suggest a religious cult. On a possible connection of Bethlehem with Lahamu, see E LHANAN ( 5 2, end). On suggested traces of ‘Athe and Kasin see E TH - KAZIN . Cp von Gall, AZtisi-ad. Kultstatten, I 24-I 2 6. How much significance, if any, is to be attached to the fact that Zebulun is classed with Issachar as a Leah 7.aLeah-tribe. tribe whilst Naphtali goes with Dan as a Bilhah-Rachel tribe. is disputed (see R ACHEL , 5 I, Z ILPAH , 5 zf., and cp TRIBES; 11%). $5 T h e Bilhites, Naphtali and Dan, may have been regarded as farther from the centre ; they were not in historical times of any importance. Zebulun, indeed, isnot much more prominent. None of the great actors in the Palestinian drama is assigned to the tribe (see, however, $ 5 end). Its brother tribe, however, may have played $ some part in the history of Israel (see I SSACHAR , 5 4): it is mentioned before Zebulun not only in the story of Jacob’s family but also in most of the lists of the tribes. It is rather remarkable, therefore, that the order is reversed in five more important passages : the three poetical pieces (Judg. 5 Gen. 49 Dt. 33), and the two places dealing with the partitionof Canaan (Nu. 3419-29
1 For ’ 3 C6 reads I.$oAdpsv’uovurv-i.e., 1 either 7-17 (Josh. 23 5 t) or cynn (often), or (Ball) wy-but the Greek text IS not

(a=+

..

(MVG, 1902,p. 189).

Dt. 33 r9a, on the other hand, contains a couplet (see next 0) which suggests that the population was mixed. The Aramzan element must have become strong. There would no doubt, however, be a strong Israelite party. I t seems to have been able to make its voice heard (see J ONAH , G ATH - HEPHER ). On the possibility that ‘ a greater than Jonah ’ also came from a Zebulunite town see N ARARETH . T h e connection of Galilee with Judzea in later times (see G ALILEE , 5 3 , N APHTALI , § 3) seems to be reflected in Ps. 68 27 [ . E ] (chiefs of Zebulun, chiefs of Naphtali). 7 On Zebulunite ‘judges ’ see below, 5 7. How Dt. 331gn was meant to be read is uncertain : but it appears to tell of comings of many to some
1 Credit is given them for’a share in another struggle (GideonJerubbaal) in the present text of Judg. 6 356, but not in 723. 2 D is the gang of the corvhe, not the labour. Cp conversely n the Aesyr. idiom za-bi-il kw-du-n‘ used of the corvhe, not the pang. 3 Cp for example how Targ. Jer. has inverted the saying in Gm. 49 156 referred to above. 4 Gen. 49 13 has been emended and will he emended again and again. It seems to containdouhlets. KInl is hardly possible. 5 Bertholet suggests that ’>?% represents a verb, preserved in @‘s r a s o ~ ~ o l ; v . r o v ’l?V, viz.,’the verb 033 = D33, ‘gather.’ Ball = 1 1 had suggested 1 ~ ~ (‘pour out’)or iyn? (‘drain’). What @’s &rr6pra (for ynp) represents is not clear ; Cheyne (Ex#. T 10 qsx) suggested il$?l (wrongly for 531,whence MT h). He restored : ‘And the t r i a k e s of merchants shall the suck.’ 6 Pesh. findsships,mentionedin Gen. 49, and Ball txere(PSBA 17 167s [18951) and in Dt. 33 (PSBA 18 ~ z g J [18961). 7 The flattering account of the tribal eponym in Test. 1 2 Patr. (Zebulun) is remarkable.

to be preferred. 2 Cp C. H. Graf, Der Segen Moses, 46 : on religious fairs cp Sprenger, AZfe Ge?:. Arab. 223f: Unfortunately we have little direct information about the visitations of sanctuaries at a distance. There was probably a good deal of it. Cp ‘Dan to Beersheba,’ Expositor, 5th ser., 8411-421 (1898). 3 It may be noted, however, that the boundaries of Zebulun, Naphtali and Issachar are represented RS having met at Tabor $ , (cp T A B ~ R 2). Cp Hos. 5 I, and see v. Gall, Alfisraelitiscltc
4 The scene seems in the present text to he laid at Dothan. 5 Dodo the Bethlehemite can hardly be supposed to belong to N. Palestine. otherwise the Zebulunite Bethlehem might be #2 referred to in ‘connectionwith the suggestion in ISSACHAR,.

Kulfsfatten, 124J

5387

5388

ZEBULUN
Josh. 19).1 Cp I SSACHAR , § I, e n d ; TRIBES, I O , iii. On the assuniption of the early arrival of Issachar and Zebulun, their being nevertheless ' younger ' than the more southern tribes has been explained by Steuernagel as due to -their arriving later at their final seat (Einwanderuizg, 33, c ) . ~ In fact he thinks he has found evidence that the Zebulunites settled in midPalestine for a time before moving northwards. T h e 'judge' Elon (Judg. l211$) is obviously the eponym of a city or clan (or both) Elon. I n any case he is said to have been buried in a city the name of which is vocalised in M T as AIJALON( p . v . , z ) , but should (p.. perhaps be ELOIV ., 2). N o such town being assigned to Zebulun in Josh. 19 10-16. Steuernagel supposes that the Elon meant is the Elou assigned in 1943 to Dan, and that the words ' i n the land of Zebulun ' were added to a Elon ' in Judg. 1212 by a copyist who wished to exclude this very identification, which seemed to him obviously incorrect. Stenernagel, on the (contrary, thinks that the excluded interpretation is correct, and therefore holds that Zebulun, like N APHTALI ( q . ~ . , I ) , halted in central He admits, however, that the Palestine for a.time. identification he assumes is precarious. It is ; moreover, the assertion that no town Elon is assigned to Zebulun i n Josh. must be qualified by reference to the incompleteness of the list of towns (see below, 5 g i). It has been customary to assign to Zebulun the 'judge' Ibzan 011 the ground of his being called a Wnckler. however, holds that the Bethlehemite. Bethlehem intended is the southern town, which at that time would be a part of ' Benjamin' (see above, col. 2583 n. I ) . On the other hand it is difficult to dissociate Ibzan ( p ~ ) Ebez (p: 1920), a from Josh. town assigned to Issachar (cp ABEz),3 between which and Zebulun there was probably no clear demarcation. P s genealogy of Zebulun is slight : 4 it contains three names 5-Sered (or Seded?) and Jahleel, which we can 8, Genealogical. hardly venture to distinguish from the towns Sarid and Nahalal of Josh. 19 IO 1 5 , in spite of the differences in the spelling,c and Elon, on which s t e above (preceding S). Gaddiel. too, the Zebulunite 's,py,' was perhaps assigned to one of these three (Sodi. V D = ~ ( * ) ~ D: Nu.1310).
Is Parnach, 7119, ' father of Elizur the Zehulunite delegate the to survey W. Palestine (Nu 3425), a corruption of the same name? Helon (i5n),the 'father' of the Zehulunite censusdelegate (Nu. 1 g 2 7 ' 24 29 10 16) may come from Elon.

ZECHARIAH
mentioned, two of the towns to be referred to immediately (Jokneam, which, according to Josh. 19 1 1 , did not belong to Zebulun, and Dimnah= Rimmonah) and KARTAH (Kartan in Josh. 21 32 is Naphtalite). ii. Boundary.- According to Josephus ( A n t . v. 122, § 84) the Zebulunites were settled as far as Gennesaret (phxpt reuvuaplbos) and about Carmel and the sea. The delimitation of territory in Josh. 19 10-14 cannot be really made out. The line is given first westwards (v. IO$), and then eastwards (.) I, $ of a place already referred to (5 8) called Sarid in MT, which may be TeZZ Shadzid (see S ARID ). Westward the line is drawn past ' Dabbesheth' (see M ARALAH , D ABBESHETH ) to the wiidy that is before Jokneani (TeN Kuimzin). Eastward it is drawn to C HISLOTH - TABOR ( I R s d ) and on to D ABERATH (DebGufyeh),which belonged, according to 2128, to Issachar, thence, if the text is sound and we do not suppose a fusion of two accounts, turning sharp W. to JAPHIA YqZ), only to recover a position ( N. of Iksd but W. of Debciriyeh at G ATH - HEPHEK (el-Meeshhed), and continue a course due N. (see ETHKAZIN) to R IMMON [RV ; (Rummiineh) on the S. margin of the plain of Buttauf, across which it continues (see N EAH , H ANNATHON ) to the 'valley of somewhere near Tell Jaf%t, due E. J IPHTAH - EL ' (p...), of Haifa. T h e intention appears to be to give the southern and eastern boundary. Real definite frontiers there cannot have been, as the discrepant data show (cp also I SSACHAR , N APHTALI , ASHER). Generally, Zebulun must have lain NW. of Issachar, W . of the southern part of Naphtali. and S(E).of Asher. On the exuberant fertility and bnsy life of the country, see GASm. FIG chap. 20, and cp G ALILEE , § 4.

i. Towns.-Of the five towns remaining out of the list of twelve originally given as we have seen (," I ) in 5 . . 9. 19 (v. I S ), the only one that Geographical. Josh. be identified with certainty is can BE7HLEHEM ( q .v. : B.Ft-La&m,7 m. N W of Nazareth). On the other four, of which Nahalal has been referred to (I 8), and Shimron is of interest in connection with 6 iii.), the Sa-me-na of Esarhaddon (see S IMEON , see K ATTATH , NAHALAL, SHIMRON, and I DALAH . As often, two of the five (Kattath and Nahalal, called Nahalol) are probably the towns which J tells us Zebulun did not secure (Judg. 130). P adds the information that of forty-eight cities assigned to the Levites four were Zebulunite (Josh. 21 35) : the Nahalal just
1 The accidental omission of Zebulun in I Ch. 2-9 and of Issachar in Judg. 117-36 may be in some way connected with this change of order. 2 Land, on the other hand, speaking of the name Zehulun ' the mo5t difficultto explain ' says (assuming that zli6al m e a d 'dwell') 'Can the tribe at'some time or other have been so named h its neighbours or kindred hecause it had a fixed abode ; earlier than they?' ( D e Gidr Oct. 1871, p. 21, n. I). 3 Similarly Kartan is assigned in Josh. 21 32 to Naphtali, Kartah in II. 34 to Zebulun. 4 On its omission In I Ch. 2-9 see above n I . 5 In Jubilees 3423 Zebulun's wife is k & i n [Eth.], Adni [Sg..l ; the Bk. of J.ishar give- Marusa (cp Charles /ud. 206). For Nahalal = Jahleel cp Jemuel = Nemuel 'in R EUBEN

as if the original form of Zechariah was probably Zichri, which (see Z ICHRI ) is a clan-name. A study of the names with which ' Zechariah ' is grouped (e.g., Meshelemiah, from Ishme'eli) strongly confirms this [Che.] ; zA)(AplA[c] [BKAQL], whence the Grzcised form Z ACHARIAS CP. 21. I). I . b. Berechiah. b. Iddo (also loosely, b. Iddo), a prophet who, together with Haggai, is our best authority for the religious state of the early post-exilic community at Jerusalem, and is the author of Zech. 1-8. To these prophets the rebuilding of the temple is largely due (Ezra 51 614). It is probably this Zechariah who is mentioned as a p?-ieSt in Neh. 12 16 (cp no. 1 1 ) . 2. Son of Jeroboam II., king of Israel, and the fifth and last king of the house of J EHU ( z K. 1429 158-12; A V Z ACHARIAH , arupras [B in 1429, A]). Me reigned but six months, and was then slain by Shallunl b. Jabesh in I BLEAM ( q . v ..) On the date of his accession, see CHRONOLOGY, 9 34. 3. The father of Ahi or Ahijah, the mother of Hezekiah ( z K.
' Yahwk remembers '

ZECHARIAH ( S V l > T , more often

[IS 32. 521 ; but

;lr?7T,

H. W. H.

14. A son of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 21 2).

15. b. Jehoiada, a reforming chief priest in the reign
1 Is the omission of a western houndary to he connected in some way with the references to the sea in Gen. 49 14 Dt. 33 18f ? .

(I 1 2 ) .

5389

r

5390

ZECHARIAH, BOOK O F

ZECHARIAH, BOOK O F

not be limited, and it needs none, for Y a h d is its protection. of Joash, who was stoned to death in the temple court, The catastrophe of Babel (the land of the north) is near to come ; at the king’s command ( z Ch. 2 4 2 0 8 , arahpras [BA] then the exiles of Zion shall stream back from all quarters, the Jos. Ant. ix. 8 6 ; cp references in Jer. Talm. Tuunith, converted heathen shall join them Yahrve himself will dwell in the midst of them; even now hd stirs himself from his holy 69 I 2, Bab. Talm. Sanhedrin, 96 2, Lightfoot, Tempkhabitation. Sewice, 36). It was a Jewish saying that the blood3 1-10. The high priest Joshua is accused before Yahwt by stains were never washed away until the temple was Satan, but is acquitted and given rule in Yahwt’s house and burnt at the captivity. The Targ. on Lam. 220 ( ’ Shall courts, with the right of access to Yahwe in priestly intercession. The restoration of the temple and its service is a pledge of still the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of higher things. The promised ‘branch’ (or ‘shoot’ nnr), the YahwB? ’) refers this especially to Zechariah, but through Messiah, will come ; the national kingdom is to de restored ; a confusion calls him the son of Iddo. On the possible and a time of general felicity dawns, when every man shall sit reference to Zechariah’s death in Mt. 23 35 Lk. 11 51, see happy under his vine and under his fig tree. As by rights the Messianic kingdom should follow immediately on tEe exile, it is Z ACHARIAS (9). probable that the prophet designs to hint in a guarded way that 16. A prophet who, according to the Chronicler, was Zeruhbahel, who in all other places is mentioned along with as influential with Uzziah as the priest Jehoiada had oshua, IS on the point of ascending the throne of his ancestor . avid. The jewel with seven facets is already there, only the been with Joash ( 2 Ch. 26 5). Probably ‘ in the vision inscription has still to be engraved on it (39). The charges of God‘ (Z.C.) should rather be ‘ i n the fear of God’ brought against the high prirst consist simply in the obstacles (see IZV1’LU~)-z’.e.for nim? we should read n p ? (6, that.have hitherto hindered the restoration of the temple and its service ; and in like manner the guilt of the land (3 9) is simply T g . , Pesh., Ar., and some MSS). According to the still continuing domination of foreigners. Hitzig the author of Zech. 9-11. 4 1-14. Beside a lighted golden candlestick of seven branches 17. An Asaphite Levite (2 Ch. 29 13, & p a s [E]). stand two olive trees-Zeruhbabel and Joshua, the two anointed 18. A Kohathite Levite ( 2 Ch. 34 12). ones-specially watched over by him whose seven eyes run ‘9. A ‘ruler of the temple’ in the time of Josiah (2 Ch. 35 8 ; ) through the whole earth. This explanation of the vision i s according to Bertheau, ‘priest of the second order,’ cp 2 K.25 18 separated from the description by a n animated dialogue, not Jer. 53 24. In I Esd. 1 8 , ZACHARIAS. quite clear in its expression, in which it is said that the mountain Among the lists of the exiles who returned in Ena-Neh. we of obstacles shall disappear before Zeruhbahel, and that, having find seven men of this name : begun the building of the temple, he shall also bring it toan end 20. One of the b‘ne Parosh (Ezra5 3 16 Neh. S 4, cp I Esd. in spite of those who now mock at the day of small beginnings. 5 1-4. A written roll flies over the Holy Land ; this is a con8 30 41). 2 1 . One of the b’nE Bebai (EzraSIr, acapras [Bl, cp I Esd. crete representation of the curse which in future will fall of itself on all crime, so that, eg., no man who has suffered theft will 8 37, SaXapraL [Bl). 22. One of the b’nE Elam (Ezra10 26, cp I Esd. 9 2) 7. have occasion himself to pronounce a curse against the thief (cp 23. A Judahite, ancestor of Athaiah (Neh. 114). Judg. 17 2). 55-1,. Guilt, personified as a woman, is cast into an ephah24. A Shilonite (Neh. 11 5 , 8&ra [D], @&LO [K]). measure with a heavy lid and carried from Judah to Chaldza, 25. One of the h’ne Pashhur (Neh. 1 12, cqaprra [B]). 1 where it is to have its home for the future. 26. An Asaphite (Neh. 12 35 41 [om. BN*A) [=ql. 6 1-8. The divine teams, four in number, again traverse t h e world toward the four winds, to execute Yahwe‘s commands. 27. h. Jeberechiah, a contemporary of Isaiah ( S z ) , That which goes northward is charged to wreak his anger on who served with Uriah the priest, as a ‘trustworthy the N. country. The series of visions has now reached its close, witness ’ in connection with the sign Maher-shLlL1returning to its starting-point in 1 7 3 [On the ‘mountains of brass’ see BRASS ; and on the colour of the horses see COLOIJRS.~ hashbaz. Some identify him with the father of Abijah, An appendix follows (69-15). Jews from Babylon have 3 ; others, with the Levite, 17. Hitzig makes him the brought gold and silver to Jerusalem; of these the prophet author of the anonymous chaps. 12-14 of Zechariah, must make a crown designed for the ‘branch who is to build YahwFs house and sit king on the throne, hut retain a good Bertholdt, the author of chaps. 9-11. Observe that understanding with the high priest. Zerubhabel is certainly the name of his father is essentially the same as that meant here and if the received text names Joshua instead of of the father of the well-known prophet [I]. him (611), ;his s only a correction, made for reasons easy to : understand, which breaks the context and destroys the sense and the reference of ‘them hoth’ in v. 13. ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF. Zechariah, son of BereThe third section (7f.’),dated from the fourth year of Darius, chiah, son of Iddo, or by contraction son of Iddo (see contains an inquiry whether the fast days that arose in the 1 Chaps. 1-8: Z ECHA R IAH , I), appeared as a prophet . captivity are still to be observed, with a comforting and enin Jerusalem alongwith H AGGAI (4.v. ), couraging reply of the prophet. contents. in the second year of Darins Hystaspis Kosters (Her-sM nun ZsrueZ, 1894) laid stress upon (520 B. c. ), to warn and encourage the Jews to a d d & the fact that neither in Haggai nor in Zechariah do we themselves at length to the restoration of the temple, a, Their find the Jews in Jerusalem represented which then still lay in ruins. Supported by the prophets, historical as consisting of returned exiles. T h e Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, and Joshua, the high background. fact is as stated ; but it does not prepriest, set about the work, and the elders of Judah built clude us from supposing that the return and the work went forward (Ezra 5 I / 6 r4). The first of a baud of exiles may have marked the starting-point eight chapters of the book of Zechariah exactly fit into of a new era of Jewish history. Few in number they this historical setting. They are divided by precise indeed were, and they did not assume an exclusivechronological headings into three sections-(a) 11-6, attitude towards the vastly more numerous class of Jews. in the eighth month of the second year of Darius ; ( b ) who had remained behind in Judaea, whom, rather, on 17-615. on the twentyfourth day of the eleventh month the contrary, they sought to win over to their own view, of the same year ; ( c ) 7-8, on the fourth day of the and urged to congregate in and around Jerusalem, so, ninth month of the fourth year of Darius. T h e first as to make the desolate ruins once more the focus of a section is a preface containing exhortation in general new theocracy. Stade thinks that the buoyancy and terms. joyous hopefulness which we perceive in Haggai and T h e main section is the second ( b ) , containing a series Zechariah may have been due to the revolt of Smerdis.‘ of night visions, the significant features of which are But such a shaking of the Persian empire after the death pointed out by an angel who stands by the prophet and of Cambyses could not possibly have been predicted as answers his questions : still future (Hag. 2 6 ) two years after its occurrence, and 1 7 . ~ 7 . The divine chariots and horses that make the round of at a time when it had already been almost recovered the world hy Yahwe‘s orders return to the heavenly palace and from, and, moreover, the Jews could hardly have report that there is still no movement among the nations, no sign rejoiced so heartily over it, their feelings tow-ards the of the Mes4anic crisis. Seventy years have passed and Zion Persiqns being friendly. I t seems more likely that the and the cities of Judah still mourn. Sad news! dnt Yahwt gives a comfortable assurance of his gracious return to Jerusalem Jews heard with gladness of the conquest of Bahylonand the rebuilding of his temple. that is to say, the second-under Darius Hystaspis. 118-21 12 1-41. Four horns representing the hostile worldThe vengeance on Babylon, which Cyrus had not fully power that oppresses Israel aAd Jerusalem, are routed by four smiths. 1 [GVIZ rr3. The revolt of Nidintu-Bel in 521 has also heen 21-13 [5-171. The new Jerusalem is laid out with the measuring line. I t is to have no walls, that its population may suggested (Che.Jew. Rel. Lye, 1 4 . 1

& . ’

5391

5392

ZECHARJAH, BOOK O F
carried out, nowat last seemed tohe accomplished and the wrath of YahwG against the land of the Korth to fnlfil itself (Zech. 68 26[1o][). Thereby also was quickened the more general Messianic expectation that all nations would at last acknowledge the supremacy of YahwP. 'Yhroughout the first eight chapters the scene is Jerusalem in the early part of the reign of Darius. Zerubbabel and Joshua, the prince and the priest, are the leaders of the community. The great concern of the time and the chief practical theme of these chapters is the building of the .temple ; but its restoration is only the earnest of greater things to follow-viz.. the glorious restoration of David's kingdom. The horizon of these prophecies is every\rhere limited by the narrow conditions of the time, and their aim i s clearly seen. T h e visions hardly veil the thought. and the mode of expression is usually simple, except in the Messianic passages, where the tortuousness and obscurity are perhaps intentional. Noteworthy is the affinity between some notions evidently not framed by the prophet himself a n d the prologue to Job,--the heavenly hosts that wander through the earth and bring back their report to Yahwe's throne, the figure of Satan, the idea that suffering and calamity are evidences; of guilt and of accusations presented before God. Passing from chaps. 1-4 to chaps. 9 8 , we at once feel ourselves transported into a different world.
Yahwe's word is accomplished on Syria-Phmnicia and Philistia (H A DR A C H [q.v.l and Damascus are first mentioned); and then the Messianic kingdom begins in Zion 3. Chaps. 9-14 : and the Israelites detained among th; conb&,s, heathen, Jud;th .and Ephraim combined receive a part in it. T h e might of the son; of Javan is broken in battle against this king$om (chap.9). After a n intermezzo of three verses (101-3: Ask rain of YahwS not of the diviners') a second and quite analogous Mcssiakc prophecy follows. T h e foreign tyrants fall ; the lordship of Assyria and Egypt has a n e n d ; the autonomy and martial power of the nation are restored. The scattered exiles return as citizens of the new theqcracy, all obstacles in their way parting asunder as when the waves of the Red Sea gnve passage to Israel at the founding of the old theocracy (103-12). Again there is a n interlude of three verses (11 1-3): fire seizes the cedars of Lebanon and the oaks of Rnshun. This is followed by the difficult passage about the shyherds. ,The shepherds (rulers) of the nation make their floc an article of trade and treat the sheep as sheep for the shambles. Therefore, the inhabited world shall fall a sacrifice to the tyranny of its kings, whilst Israel is delivded to a shepherd who feeds the sheep for those who make a trade of the flock (1E)Xg ':!y!B, 11 7 11='they that sell them,' a. 5 ) and enters on his office with two stave:. ' Favour' and ' Union.' He destroys ' t h e three shepherds' it; one month, hut is soon weary of his flock and the flock of him. He breaks the staff Favour'--Le., the covenant of peace with the nations-and asks the traders for his hire. Receiving thirty pieces of silver, he casts it into the temple treasury and breaks the staff ' Union'-ie., the brotherhood between Judah an'3 Israel. H e is succeeded by a foolish shepherd, who neglects his flock and lets it go to ruin. At length Yahwe iutervenes; the foolish shepherd falls by the sword ; two-thirds of the people perish with him in the Messianic crisis, but the remnant of one-third forms the seed of the new theocracy (114-17 taken with 13 7-9, according to the necessary transposition proposed by Ewald). All this must he a n allegory of past events, the time present to the author and his hopes for the future beginning only a t 11 17 13 7-9. Chap. 12 presents a thkd variation on the Messianic promise. All heathendom is gathered together against Jerusalem and perishes there. Y a h d first gives victory to the conntryfolk of Judah and then they r e s x e the capital. After this triumph the noblest houses of Jerusaleni hold, each by itself, agreat lamentation over a martyr ' whom they have pierced ' (or 'whom men have pierced'). I t is taken for granted that the readers will know who the martyr is, and the exegesis of the church applies the passage to Christ [cp HADAD-KIMMON]. Chap. 13 7 - 6 is a continuation of chap. 12 ; the dawn of the d a y of salvation is accompanied by a general purging away of idolatry and the enthusimn of false prophets. Yet R fourth variation of the picture of the incoming of the Messianic deli\zerance is given in chap. 14. The heathen gather against Jerusalem and take the city, hut d o not utterly destroy the inhahitants. Then Yahwe a t a time known only to himself, shall appear with all his saint; on Mount Olivet and destroy the heathen in battle, while the men of Jerusalem take refuge in their terror in the great cleft that opens where Yahw.5 sets his foot. Now the new era begins and eveii the heathen do homage to Yahwe hy bringing du; tribute to the annual feast of tabernacles. All m Jerusalem is holy down t o the hells on the horses and the cooking-pots [cp Crit. Bi6.1.

ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF
There is a striking contrast between chaps. 1-8 and chaps. 9-14, The prophecy 1-8 is closely tied to the Ch~acter.situation and the wants of the conimunity of Jerusalem in the second year of Darius I . , and all that it aims a t is the restoration of the temple and perhaps the elevation of 7~rubbabel to the throne of David. Chapters 9 8 contain no trace of this historical situation and deal with quite other matters. They are more obscnre and more fantastic. There are corresponding differences in style and speech; and it is particularly to be noted that, whilst the superscriptions in chaps. 1-8 name the author and give the date of each oracle with precision, those in the second part (91 121) are without name or date. That both parts d o not belong to the same author must be admitted.

*.

Most recent critics make the second part the older. Chaps. 9-11 are ascribed to a contcmporary of Amos and Hosea, about the middle of the eighth century R.c., because Ephraim is m m tioned a s well as Judah, and Assyria along with Egypt (IO I O ), whilst the neighhours of Israel appear in 9 I$ in the same way as in Amos 1-2. T h a t chaps. 12-14 are also pre-exilic is held to appear especially in the attack on idolatry and lying prophecy (13 16; hut, as this prophecy speaks only of Judah and Jeru.) salem, it is dated after the fall of Samnria, and 1s assigned to the last days of the Judrean kingdom on the strength of 1% where 11, a n allusion is seen t o the mourning for King Josiah, slain in battle a t Megiddo.

It is more likely that chaps. 9-14 all together are of much later date. These predictions have no affinity , either with the prophecies o Amos, f 6. Probably Hosea, and Isaiah, or with that of Jerelater. miah. T h e kind of eschatology which we find in Zech. 9-14 was introduced by Ezekiel, who in particular is the author of the conception that the time of deliverance is to be preceded by a joint attack of all nations on Jerusalem, in which they come to final overthrow. The importance attached to the temple service, even in Messianic times (Zech.14), implies a n author who lived in the ideas of the religious commonwealth of post-exilic times. So also the use of ' Zion ' as a name for the theocracy. The diaspora and the cessation of prophecy (131-6) are presupposed. A future king is hoped for ; but in the present there is no Davidic king, only a Davidic family standing on the same level with The other noble families in Jerusalem (127 12). ' bastard' (mixed race) of Ashdod reminds us of Neh. 1 3 2 3 8 ; and the words of 912 ('to-day, also, do I declare that I will render double unto thee') have no sense unless they refer back to the deliverance from Babylonian exile. Whilst chaps. 9-14, are thus all later than chaps. 1-8, they are not themselves homogeneous: they fall into two well-marked divisions-9-11 and 12-14. The latter division [12-141 contains two prophecies which are little more than a standine doematic formula ~, of eschatology filled up with concrete 6. details. and can be understood well enough (if need be) without our knowing the historical setting. The actual situation a t the time of composition discloses itself only in one or two features, as, for example, when the country of Judah is contrasted with the city of Jerusalem, and the deliverance of the city comes from the country-a feature which seems t o indicate the Maccabrean period. The former division ( g - l l ) , on the other hand-which again falls into two sections, 91-11 3 and 114-17+137-9 - much more concrete and cannot be understood at is all if the date of its composition is not known. I n 91-113 we find that it is the Greeks (913; cp JAVAN) a h o are the heathen power, the enemy of God, which must be overthrown before the Messiah's kingdom can come. Assyria and Egypt, which take the place of Javan in chap. 10, are the kingdom of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies. T h e region of H ADRACH ( qA ) , Damascus. and Hamath, against which the wrath of Yahwb is, in the first instance, directcd (91f.), is the seat, not of the old Assyrians, but of the Seleucidae.
I

5393

5394

ZECHER
And inasmuch as Assyria here takes precedence of Egypt we are able to fix the date of the present Date. section more precisely as falling somewhere within the first third of the second century B .c., for it was not till the beginning of that century that the Seleucidae became masters ofJudaea(SELEuCIDE,§ 7f.). T h e second section ( 1 1 4 - 1 7 f 1 3 7 - 9 ) will also be of this date : for a right understanding of it a correct apprehension of the historical situation is still more indispensable, though, indeed, rendered very difficult not only by the bad state of the text, but also by our defective knowledge of this period of Jewish history. By the owners of the sheep who traffic in them we are to understand the Seleucid sovereigns who carried on a remunerative business in farming out their flocks to the shepherds. ‘The shepherds are the high priests and ethnarchs of the Jews ; by the rapid and violent changes of the shepherds the events which preceded and led up to the Maccabaean revolt are denoted. They were all of them worthless whether they traced their descent from Zadok or from Tobias. At last the measure of iniquity was filled up by Menelaus, who may very well be meant by the last cruel shepherd who is to bring on the catastrophe and the judgment ( 1 1 1 5 8 ) . The prominent man, who is a n exception to the rest, and does not come into the series, who takes upon him the office of shepherd in the interests of the flock, but gives it up when he sees that the flock is unworthy of his care, might be Hyrcanus the son of Tobias. According to the (legendary) accounts we have of him he was a man of proud disposition and lofty plans who iived in undisguised enmity with his brethren the Tobiadze, overcame them and put two of them to death, and yet was unable to hold his own in Jerusalem (Jos. Ani. xii. 49 [2221, ed. I Niese). In any case he was a person of quite a different sort from the ordinary Jewish aristocrat. It is natural to ask how we are to suppose that at his departure he obtained his reward for having been shepherd. For, as a rule, the order was reversed and shepherds paid for the right of feeding the sheep. But this trait in the picture is more easily understood in the case of Hyrcanus, whose position was quite exceptional, than in that of the other shepherds. Perhaps his adherents may in the end have given him money to leave Jerusalem when the good understanding between them had come to a n end and various external dangers were threatening. I t is worth noticiug that the reward received by the shepherd 13) is cast by him into the temple-treasury (11 ; according to z Macc. 311,Hyrcanus, the son of Tobias, had a deposit there. Literafure.-The literature of the book is cited by C. H. H. Wright,‘ Z ~ c h w i a hand his PropJzecips,(’4 1879. See also Stade, Deuterozacharia’ ( Z ATW, 1881-2); and Wellhansen and Nowack‘s editions of the Minor Prophets. [Cp also G. A. Smith, TWPZVC Projhefs, vol. ii., and PROPHECY, 5 47.1

ZEDEKIAH
Van Kasteren (Rev.Bibl., 1895, p. 30) adopts the reading Zerad, and plausibly identifies with Khirbt-f Seridi, between Merj ‘Ayan (where he places ‘ the entrance of Hamath’) and Hermon, to the S. of Kh. Sanbariyeh (see S IBRAIM ). With regard to the second passage : Cornill thinks that the original reading (see @) must have been simply ‘ t o the entrance of Hamath’ and that ‘Zedadah’ (Le. ‘to Zedad’) was interpolated after ‘ Hamath ’ from Nu. 348.’ ‘ (To) Hamath ’ hefore ‘ Zedadah ’ w a s thus rendered useless, and so the two names changed places (see MT). The original @ of Ezek. did not, it is assumed, contain the interpolation. The scribe who altered it simply made a n insertion; hence the existing MSS of QS represent ‘ Hamath‘ not only after but also before ‘Zedadah’ (VpaueASappa [B], vpa8’ah. [A], qpavarhaap’pa [VI, aSahaarpa8’ According to the view of the geogra hicdl definitionsin Nu. 34 and Ezek. 47 13 J advocated egewhere (see RIBLAH, ? SIBRAIM) region referred to in the original text may have the been, not the land of Canaan, but the Negeb. I n that case,

,.

[VW.I).

Mt. Hor=Mt. Jerahmeel, Hamath=Maacath, Zedad or Zerad probably= Misgur, and Ziphron or Sibraim (to be identified)= Zarephath. Cp ZEROR. T. K. C. ZEDECHIAS, RV Sedekias ( C ~ A ~ K I A C [BA]) I Esd. 146. See ZEDEKIAH i. ZEDEKIAH (!iVpTi, also 3 ? ? see I, 2, 5 , :7, C € ~ € K I A [ C cp Sidl+%, name of a king of Ashkelon, ;] the temp. Sennacherib [ K ATN 1651). I. The iast king of Judah (597-586). son of JOSIAH a (2 K . 2 4 f : 2 C h . 3 6 1 0 3 ; in I Ch. 3 1 5 ~ Jer.2712 1 Name. 281 293 4934 n*pir). According to 2 K. . 2417, tiis original name was Mattaniah ; the ‘ changed his name ’ to Zedekiah king of ‘ Babel ’ (5x1) (Sidkiyah) when he raised this uncle of the deposed king to the throne of Judah. This act of sovereignty is in itself probable : cp the new name imposed by ASurbani-pal on Necho I. a ( Limir-iSakku-ASur, ‘ let Aiur’s viceroy see.’) The special appropriatenessof the name selected is not obvious. Parallel names suggest that ‘ Zedekiah’ (Sidgyah) means properly ‘Zidkite,’and even if we suppose (rationally enough) that, when borne by the king it acquired the new meaning thatisby no means a clear expression ‘righteousnessof Yahw&,’3 of Zedekiah‘s relation to his suzerain. No fully satisfactory explanation of this has been offered ; and yet Hebrew onomatology cannot afford to confess itself baflled. The theory that in many passages ‘ Babel’ ti>>)= 5Nony- suggests an explanation. is in some OT passages probably niiswritteu for ‘ny-, Since it follows that this great race-name may possibly he represented by 137.4 Now SidkiyMu, ‘righteousness of Jerahmeel,’ is a name that mighi cbnceivahly he given to a royal vassal of Jerahmeel, after he had sworn fidelity (Ezek. 1713) to his
suzerain.

J. W.

ZECHER (V!),I Ch.831, RV.

See ZECHARIAH,

i. 6. ZECHRIAS (zexpioy [Bl ~ z e p i o y[AI). 1 E d . 81,RV=Ezra71, AZARIAH, 3. ZEDAD (17y; only in acc. ”f’,Y ; 377s [Sam.] ; C A ~ A A A K[BLI, CAAAAAK [A], CAAAAK [F], Amdath
[It.]), one of the points in the ideal northern frontier of Canaan according to P or the later redactor (Nu. 348), and also mentioned in the I/ passage of Ezekiel (47~5; 4 see later). Robinson (BR 3461 n.), for 5 3 Wetzstein (Reieisebe?icht, 8 8 ) , Furrer (ZDPV S q ) , Muhlau, and Socin, identify it with the the large village Sadud, between Riblah and Palmyra (long. 37’ E . ) ; but this is too far E. if it is considered that both Hamath and Damascus are meant to be excluded. It is also a n objection, that the implied view of the northern frontier assumes a large part of the Lebanon district to be included within the Israelitish border. Many besides Buhl (Pal. 6 6 ) will think that this carries idealisation beyond what is probable (cp H OR , M OUNT ). 5395

Zedekiah was only twenty-one at his accession and it is probable that the queen-mother Hamutal made up by a. Dangers. her own energy for the weakness of her son. This certainly seems to be implied by what Ezekiel says of her in one of his striking 5 (Ezek. 195). Whether it was so or not, similitudes there w a s on the part of the rulers no just political insight. Fidelity to the suzerain, and a strict maintenance of the old moral traditions of Israel, would have insured a peaceful though inglorious existence for king and people (cp Ezek. 176 1 4 ) . But the deportation of a large part of the upper class brought wealth and political power to those who had had none of the necessary training. These new men ’ soon displayed in a n intensified degree the vices of the worst of their predecessors (Ezek. 2225 27 246), and, with an obstinacy which it is difficult for us moderns to understand, cherished the hope of quickly throwing off the foreign yoke. Meantime those who had gone into exile with
1 On the strange insertion of Zedekiah in v. 16 among the sons of Jeboiakim, see Benringer, who thinks that t h e author of the text may really have supposed Zedekiah to have been the son of Jehoiakim, hut does not mention the possibility that the scrihe m a y have misread the text before him. i1*ij1 (Zechariah) would he a very possible name. 2 Tiele BAG 356 3 Cp ~ A M E S ,0 ;6, and note also Sidki-ilu, the name of an Ass. eponym (Del. Ass. H W B 564a). 4 C o TEBALIAH. The same exdanation amlies to all the names’ ending in or beginning with;?*. 5 See Kraetzschmar, ad Zoc.

..

5396

ZEDEKIAH
Jehoiachin looked on at a distance with mingled contempt and indignation (Ezek. 1 1 1 5 1 4 z z J ) , and Jeremiah, not less than Ezekiel, recognised the moral incapacity of the new lords of Jerusalem. Whether, or how far, Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, interfered in the affairs of Judah, remains obscure. T h e redactors of the narrative and prophetical writings certainly believed that the power which broke up the national existence was the Babylonian. When we look beneath the surface, however, we suspect that there has been a great misunderstanding, and that, according to the extant fragments of the old Hebrew records, when restored to something not unlike their original purity, it was the king of J5rahmeel in N. Arabia who invaded Jewish territory, who hesieged and took Jerusalem and once and again carried away its inhabitants. We do not kkow enough of the political condition of N.Arabia to say what nation is represented by the archaising name Jerahmeel but assume that there must have been some power capable A enforcing his will on S. Palestine. It is f possible, of course, that the rBle of the N. Arabians was suhordinate to that of the Bahylrnians (cp OeaDlAH [BOOK], 6 7); hut this is only a hypothesis. All that we know IS that N. Arabia was for a long ti,me regarded as the great oppressor of Israel. There is to some extent a similar probiem with regard to the captivity of the northern Israelites and the subsequent invasion (or invasions) of Judah in the time oi Hezekiah. We are, however, in a worse position with regard to the captivities of Judah, for we have as yet n o cuneiform records of Babylonian ivterference with Judah at the reported times of those captlvltlrs. Another troublesome N. Arabian potentate was the king of Misrim ; here again the name is an archaism.’ According to our revised text of z K. 2 4 2 ‘hands’ of MiSrites had 3. The already brought Judah very low in the reign of Misrites. Jehoiakim : it is to such incursions, we helieve, ’ that the 50-called Scythian rophecies ?f Jeremiah really refer (see P ROPHET 5 26, end). gut, according to Jer. 27 I 8 (substituting for ;he introductory verse the passage which now appears as Z S I ) , ~ the king of Aram (Le. not the great king of Jerahmeel, but some inferior king 0: the border of Jewish territory) and the king of Mig~urtsent ambassadors to Zedekiah, to concert a revolt. Evidently a change of circumstances had occurred and the MiSrites were now no longer anxious for the destrAction or weakening of Judah. This king of Miggur is no douht the personage miscalled Pharaoh Hophra in the common text of Jer. 4430.4 For a time the siege of Jerusalem by the Jerahmeelitei (which we refer to by anticipation) was interrupted hy a friendly diversion on the part of a Misrite army. It appears to be a trustworthy tradition that the prophet lererniah ” exhorted the rulers and . . of people ~ . 4. Jeremiah, Judah to abstain from any act of Zedekiah, and rebellion, and that in doing so he was the war-party. diametrically opposed to prophets of an inferior order (see TEREMIAII, z ; P ROPHET, §$24-26). W e have also records ofembaisies of Zedekiah to the great king of 5 3 1 . ~ What messages were carried by these embassies, we cannot of course say : the embassies had for their primary object the conveyance of the annual tribute of Judah,6 until the fatal year when Zedekiah rebelled. According to Winckler ( K A T i 3 ) , 7 8 8 ) , who holds 2 that Zedekiah’s suzerain was the king of Babylon,’ the embassies had another most important object, viz., the bringing about of the restoration of the cultus of Yahwb in the temple, which, he thinks, was in abeyance throughout the reign of Zedekiah owing to the destruction, or at any rate the removal, of the sacred vessels. He does not, however, say that the official worship of Cp Winckler K A TPI 141. See Duhm’s Lommencary. On!y two kings are meant. ‘Edoy’ and ‘Moab’sh~uld: b ‘.4ram (Jerahmeel) a n d Missur. B’ne Ammon,’ Tyre, ‘ Zidon ’ are also wrong ; read B’ne Jerahmeel ’ and ‘Migpur ’ (see Crit. s . . a) 4 y i ~ n a dittographed nyig, and this springs out of 1x15 is Pir’u. 5 I.e., Jerahmeel (Jer. 293 51 59, where, following @, we read nKn instead of n x - i e . ‘from’ instead of ‘with’ Zedekiah). Guthe, however (GVI, zz.;), thinks that Zedekiah went in person on the occasion referred to. Certainly Manasseh, when summoned hy Esar-haddon to his durhar was careful to obey. But the theory adopted in the text is safe;. 6 In 51 59 read ”?I? l@ (6 ip,y:px,, Ghpov ; see SERAIAH). 7 Winckler’s theory, however, could of course he accomrnodated to the view that the real suzerain of Judah at this time was the king of Jerahmeel.
1 2 3

ZEDEKIAH
Mardnk and NabCl was introduced into the temple, or that Zedekiah’s accession to the throne was without the sanctions of Yahwism. H e thinks that it was only the ‘ orthodox, monotheistic YahwB-cultus ’ which v a s abolished ; the ‘ ordinary Canannitish forms of cultus ’ (‘ no doubt partly identical with those of Zedekiah ’ ) were either allowed to remain, or, as the case might be, set up anew. And when Jeremiah (2717) urges the people to ‘ serve the king of 513 ’ that they might <live,’ he means, ‘give up the hope of the restoration of the cultus in the sense of Josiah and of orthodoxy, and be content with what is left.’ ‘This,’ Winckler adds, ‘is the precise opposite of the demands of the Yahwk-party, to which Jeremiah, as a pro-Babylonian, is absolutely opposed.’ This scholar’s view of Jeremiah‘s attitude is altogether original, and the hypothesis of the abolition of Yahd-worship is difficult to work out. For instance, why should Zedekiah have given his support (as Winckler’s interpretation of Jer. 2 9 3 implies that he did) to a request for milder treatment by the Babylonians, when one of the chief objects of the party in favour of this request was the restoration of Jeconiah or Jehoiachin? And is there any trace in Jeremiah or in Ezekiel of the supposed fact that the Yahwb-cult in the temple had been violently closed, or in the records of the life of Jeremiah that this enthusiast for YahwB was ’content with what was left ‘ after this catastrophe had occurred? C p SHESHBAZZAR. It is true, the popular cults, chief among which was the imported Terahmeelite cult of Baal (i.e.. the sunand the great ‘ Cnshite’ or 6‘ Re’igion and %maelitish’ goddess ( L e . , either the mora’ity’ moon, or less Drobablv the Dlanet Venus),l attracted the majority’ more than &at of YnhwB (as exhibited in Deuterononly). Not only Jeremiah but also Ezekiel2 expresses the utmost horror a t this apostasy, as they regard it. Both prophets are fully conscious of the connection between a low type of religion and immorality. It also appears that even those Rho professed fidelity to Yahwism had extremely callous consciences. Of this we have a striking evidence in Jer. 348-22. Certain rich citizens of Jerusalem, we are told, emancipated their Hebrew slaves at the beginning of the siege (according to the prescriptions of Ex.21 1-4 Dt. 1 5 I) but after the temporary raising ,, of the siege resumed possession of them. The motive which induced the masters temDorarilv to liberate their slaves was probably, not humanity, but the desire to increase the number of the available defenders of the walls of Jerusalem. It was in the ninth year of his reign that Zedekiah finally gave way to the war-party and rebelled against his suzerain first, however, taking the precaution 4 6. Rebellion. ‘ sending his ambassadors to plsn ({.e. Migrim, not Migraim), that they might giv; him horses and many warriors's (Ezek. 17 I. ; ) A striking picture is drawn by Ezekiel (21 21 [ z 6 ] x ) of the king of $22 (Jerahmeel) standing where the ways divide, and shuffling the arrows before the teraphim, and then inspecting the liver of a sacrificed animal-two forms of divination, the first of which is specially characteristic of Arabia, not of Bahylonia.4 There was a chance that he might have led his army against RabbathbnC-ammon, or, as we should most probably read Rehobothhne-jerahmeel, by which is meant the capital of &im. Hut the oracle decided him on going to Jerusalem. So the Jerahmeelite army encamped against that strongly fortified city. On his side, the king of Misrim was not idle. I n the spring of 587 a hiisrite army advanced towards Judah, or perhaps towards Rihlah-i.e., not the northern Riblah, on the E. Lank of the Orontes, but a southern Riblah, or rather Jerahmeel, in the
~~ ~~~